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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Coomer v. Lindell/MyPillow, Inc. (1)
D. Colorado · Jul 7, 2025
CO / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritytort
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition cites a non-existent Tenth Circuit case styled United States v. Hoffman/Hoffmann. Outcome: Monetary Sanctions. Prior Order to Show Cause available here.After reviewing - and dismissing - the factual allegations made by Counsel, and noting that they had submitted errata in parallel cases (dealing with other fabricated citations), the court swiftly concluded that they "have violated Rule 11 because they were not reasonable in certifying that the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions contained in Defendants’ Opposition to Motion in Limine [Doc.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Sanctions; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Paid tools like Westlaw AI are not a defense; Rule 11 requires you to personally verify every cite, regardless of which platform produced it.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition cites a non-existent Tenth Circuit case styled United States v. Hoffman/Hoffmann. Outcome: Monetary Sanctions. Prior Order to Show Cause available here.After reviewing - and dismissing - the factual allegations made by Counsel, and noting that they had submitted errata in parallel cases (dealing with other fabricated citations), the court swiftly concluded that they "have violated Rule 11 because they were not reasonable in certifying that the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions contained in Defendants’ Opposition to Motion in Limine [Doc. 283] were warranted by existing law or by a nonfrivolous argument for extending, modifying, or reversing existing law or for establishing new law."Both counsel were sanctioned with a 3,000 USD fine, payable to the court.
Operational lesson
Paid tools like Westlaw AI are not a defense; Rule 11 requires you to personally verify every cite, regardless of which platform produced it.
Record details
ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Colorado
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateJul 7, 2025
CO
AI toolCo-Pilot, Westlaw’s AI, Gemini, Grok, Claude, ChatGPT, Perplexity
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Sanctions
Known amount$6,000
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
Co-Pilot, Westlaw’s AI, Gemini, Grok, Claude, ChatGPT, Perplexity is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Monetary Sanctions
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
8 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition cites a non-existent Tenth Circuit case styled United States v. Hoffman/Hoffmann.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Opposition lists United States v. Hassan as Tenth Circuit authority; court notes it is a Fourth Circuit case and not binding.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Opposition falsely quotes Pure as stating 'reputation and character are inextricably intertwined'; court found the quote does not appear.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Opposition cites Reaves to claim evidence can implicate multiple evidentiary rules; court found Reaves discusses only Rule 608(b) and does not support that proposition.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition cites a non-existent Tenth Circuit case styled Perkins v. Fed. Fruit & Produce Co.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition cites a non-existent District of Colorado case styled Estate of Martinelli v. City & County of Denver.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Opposition misattributes Ginter as a District of Colorado decision; court notes it is from the Eastern District of Kentucky.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Opposition asserts Perrin supports routine admission of truthfulness evidence in defamation actions; court found Perrin is not a defamation case and does not state that rule.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Coomer v. Lindell/MyPillow, Inc. (1)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition cites a non-existent Tenth Circuit case styled United States v. Hoffman/Hoffmann. Outcome: Monetary Sanctions. Prior Order to Show Cause available here.After reviewing - and dismissing - the factual allegations made by Counsel, and noting that they had submitted errata in parallel cases (dealing with other fabricated citations), the court swiftly concluded that they "have violated Rule 11 because they were not reasonable in certifying that the claims, defenses, and other legal contentions contained in Defendants’ Opposition to Motion in Limine [Doc.…
- Why does Coomer v. Lindell/MyPillow, Inc. (1) matter for legal AI risk?
- Paid tools like Westlaw AI are not a defense; Rule 11 requires you to personally verify every cite, regardless of which platform produced it.
- What does the public record establish about Coomer v. Lindell/MyPillow, Inc. (1)?
- 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 Coomer v. Lindell/MyPillow, Inc. (1) 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.