Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc.
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
D. Maryland · Jul 28, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the pincite and import of Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div.; court found the plaintiff's pincites/description did not accurately represent the case though Aguilar is a real case. Outcome: Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21).
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and misrepresented authority and records Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21) in D. Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the pincite and import of Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div.; court found the plaintiff's pincites/description did not accurately represent the case though Aguilar is a real case. Outcome: Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21).
This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21) in D. Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
Corrected 2026-11-02: see the corrections log.
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21)
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the pincite and import of Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div.; court found the plaintiff's pincites/description did not accurately represent the case though Aguilar is a real case.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misdescribed the holding and import of Mancia v. Mayflower Textile Servs.; court found the citation was imprecise and did not support the plaintiff's asserted proposition.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc.?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff misstated the pincite and import of Aguilar v. Immigration & Customs Enforcement Div.; court found the plaintiff's pincites/description did not accurately represent the case though Aguilar is a real case. Outcome: Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21).
- Why does Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with Warning: the court found no hallucinated case but filings whose descriptions of real cases do not match them, in line with the plaintiff's admitted use of AI tools; it denied her motions for discovery sanctions and cautioned her that future inaccurate filings may be sanctioned (Opinion, pp. 19-21) in D. Maryland. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc.?
- 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 Campbell v. TidalHealth, Inc. 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.