Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Cologne District Court, 312 F 130/25
Cologne District Court (Family Court) · Jul 2, 2025
GermanyEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfamilytrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Court found citation to 'Viefhues' in a Munich commentary and marginal nos. (9th ed. 2021, marginal no. 65 ff.) to be incorrect and fictitious; actual commentary and edition details differ. Outcome: Court admonished the attorney and warned that knowingly disseminating untruths may violate BRAO §43a(3).
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Court admonished the attorney and warned that knowingly disseminating untruths may violate BRAO §43a(3); the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- German courts invoke BRAO §43a(3) for fictitious citations; treat doctrinal references as regulated speech.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Court found citation to 'Viefhues' in a Munich commentary and marginal nos. (9th ed. 2021, marginal no. 65 ff.) to be incorrect and fictitious; actual commentary and edition details differ. Outcome: Court admonished the attorney and warned that knowingly disseminating untruths may violate BRAO §43a(3).
Operational lesson
German courts invoke BRAO §43a(3) for fictitious citations; treat doctrinal references as regulated speech.
Record details
CourtCologne District Court (Family Court)
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 2, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeCourt admonished the attorney and warned that knowingly disseminating untruths may violate BRAO §43a(3)
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Court admonished the attorney and warned that knowingly disseminating untruths may violate BRAO §43a(3)
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Court found citation to 'Viefhues' in a Munich commentary and marginal nos. (9th ed. 2021, marginal no. 65 ff.) to be incorrect and fictitious; actual commentary and edition details differ.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Court could not locate the cited book 'Brons, Kindeswohl und Elternverantwortung, 2013, pp. 175 ff.' and determined the reference to be fictitious.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Reference to 'Völkl, FamRB 2015, p. 74' was found to be incorrect/misleading; the actual FamRB 2015 pages cited contain a different essay (pp. 70-77) and the asserted citation is fictitious.
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Citation 'Meyer-Götz, in: Hauß/Gernhuber, Familienrecht, 6th ed. 2022, § 1671, marginal no. 33' was not found; court concluded the reference does not exist and appears conflated.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation to an 'OLG Frankfurt' decision reported at 'FamRZ 2021, p. 70' was incorrect; the court determined the cited decision/reference was fictitious or mislocated.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Cologne District Court, 312 F 130/25?
- Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Court found citation to 'Viefhues' in a Munich commentary and marginal nos. (9th ed. 2021, marginal no. 65 ff.) to be incorrect and fictitious; actual commentary and edition details differ. Outcome: Court admonished the attorney and warned that knowingly disseminating untruths may violate BRAO §43a(3).
- Why does Cologne District Court, 312 F 130/25 matter for legal AI risk?
- German courts invoke BRAO §43a(3) for fictitious citations; treat doctrinal references as regulated speech.
- What does the public record establish about Cologne District Court, 312 F 130/25?
- 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 Cologne District Court, 312 F 130/25 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.