Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers
M.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The court issued a warning to counsel regarding the submission of briefs containing suspected AI-generated hallucinations, including fake cases, non-existent pinpoint citations, and misstated legal holdings. The court denied the defendant's motion to compel arbitration due to these procedural and substantive failures.
- Why the court cared
- The court reasoned that the defendant failed to meet its burden of establishing that an agreement to arbitrate existed for all plaintiffs or that the claims were arbitrable. The court specifically highlighted that the defendant's reliance on cases was flawed due to non-existent pin cites and misstatements of the underlying holdings, which the court noted raised a suspicion of improper AI usage.
- Why it matters now
- This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of AI-assisted legal research. It serves as a warning that courts are actively identifying and sanctioning the submission of hallucinated citations and misrepresented authority, emphasizing the necessity of human verification for all AI-generated legal work.
Why this matter is tracked
In Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers, the M.D. Florida court denied the defendant's motion to compel arbitration, citing significant deficiencies in the motion's legal support. The court identified multiple instances of misrepresented case law, including non-existent pinpoint citations and mischaracterizations of holdings in cases such as Shetty v. Palm Beach Radiation Oncology Assocs., Inc. and Kroma Makeup EU, LLC v. Boldface Licensing + Branding, Inc. Additionally, the court noted improper citation practices, such as citing a published opinion as a slip opinion. The court explicitly linked these errors to a suspicion of improper AI usage, warning counsel that such conduct may violate local rules and professional conduct standards.
This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of AI-assisted legal research. It serves as a warning that courts are actively identifying and sanctioning the submission of hallucinated citations and misrepresented authority, emphasizing the necessity of human verification for all AI-generated legal work.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court suspected AI usage based on citation errors.
The court denied the defendant's Amended Motion to Compel Arbitration and Stay Proceedings without prejudice, ordering the defendant to respond to the complaint by July 31, 2026.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Lowe's cited Shetty v. Palm Beach Radiation Oncology Assocs., Inc. but used a non-existent pinpoint (cited to p. 625) and misstated the scope of the case's holding; court identified the pin cite as erroneous.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Lowe's provided a nonexistent pinpoint for Kroma, citing a page beyond the opinion's end and mischaracterizing the cited proposition.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Lowe's cited Lubin as a slip opinion citation despite the opinion being published and provided no pinpoint to support the argued proposition; court noted the odd citation practice among other citation defects.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers?
- The court issued a warning to counsel regarding the submission of briefs containing suspected AI-generated hallucinations, including fake cases, non-existent pinpoint citations, and misstated legal holdings. The court denied the defendant's motion to compel arbitration due to these procedural and substantive failures.
- Why does Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers matter for legal AI risk?
- This case illustrates judicial scrutiny of AI-assisted legal research. It serves as a warning that courts are actively identifying and sanctioning the submission of hallucinated citations and misrepresented authority, emphasizing the necessity of human verification for all AI-generated legal work.
- What does the public record establish about Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home Centers summary?
- The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.
Related matters
Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.