HomeCasesCoronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 91/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc.

N.D. California · Jul 30, 2025

CA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritycontract

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion cited a non-existent case; court found Klein v. Cheung, 20 Cal. App. 5th 1045 (2018) does not exist. Outcome: Sanctioned to repay opposing party's counsel fees.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Sanctioned to repay opposing party's counsel fees; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: ChatGPT is not an approved research tool — ban consumer LLMs for drafting and require tool-disclosure on every filing.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

ChatGPT is not an approved research tool — ban consumer LLMs for drafting and require tool-disclosure on every filing.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtN.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJul 30, 2025

AI toolChatGPT

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSanctioned to repay opposing party's counsel fees

Known amount$1

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Sanctioned to repay opposing party's counsel fees

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: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion cited a non-existent case; court found Klein v. Cheung, 20 Cal. App. 5th 1045 (2018) does not exist.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion cited Aptos Residents Ass’n v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz in a manner unrelated to the issues posited; court found the citation misdirected to different issues.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion relied on Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Redbubble, Inc., which the court found addressed different issues than those asserted.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion invoked Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC for propositions not supported by that case, per the court.
False Quotes: Case Law | Response to OSC attributed a quotation to Hall v. City of Los Angeles that does not appear in the opinion; court identified the quote as hallucinated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion cited a non-existent case; court found Klein v. Cheung, 20 Cal. App. 5th 1045 (2018) does not exist. Outcome: Sanctioned to repay opposing party's counsel fees.
Why does Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: ChatGPT is not an approved research tool — ban consumer LLMs for drafting and require tool-disclosure on every filing.
What does the public record establish about Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple 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 Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple 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.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Buchanan v. Vuori, Inc.N.D. California · Nov 20, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Marc Henri David v. George Chiala Farms, Inc.N.D. California · Nov 7, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (1)N.D. California · Sep 5, 2025same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance CompanyN.D. California · Jun 22, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2)N.D. California · Apr 28, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Najafpir v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.N.D. California · Apr 3, 2026same court · fake citations + contract

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

ChatGPT is not an approved research tool — ban consumer LLMs for drafting and require tool-disclosure on every filing.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtN.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateJul 30, 2025

AI toolChatGPT

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSanctioned to repay opposing party's counsel fees

Known amount$1

Professional sanctionNo

Tracked discrepancy record

5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion cited a non-existent case; court found Klein v. Cheung, 20 Cal. App. 5th 1045 (2018) does not exist.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion cited Aptos Residents Ass’n v. Cnty. of Santa Cruz in a manner unrelated to the issues posited; court found the citation misdirected to different issues.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion relied on Atari Interactive, Inc. v. Redbubble, Inc., which the court found addressed different issues than those asserted.

Misrepresented: Case Law | Anti-SLAPP motion invoked Makaeff v. Trump Univ., LLC for propositions not supported by that case, per the court.

False Quotes: Case Law | Response to OSC attributed a quotation to Hall v. City of Los Angeles that does not appear in the opinion; court identified the quote as hallucinated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc.?

Why does Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc. matter for legal AI risk?

ChatGPT is not an approved research tool — ban consumer LLMs for drafting and require tool-disclosure on every filing.

What does the public record establish about Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc.?

Which source supports this Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple 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.