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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions
S.D. New York · Jul 26, 2024
NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Seventh Circuit case; the reporter citation corresponds to an unrelated decision. Outcome: No sanction; Formal Warning Issued.
- Why the court cared
- Reliance on nonexistent precedent, even by pro se litigants, is an abuse of the adversarial system. The court cited Mata v. Avianca and Park v. Kim as establishing the principle that hallucinated case citations undermine judicial integrity and waste opposing parties’ and courts' resources. Plaintiff was formally warned, not excused
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with No sanction; Formal Warning Issued in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Seventh Circuit case; the reporter citation corresponds to an unrelated decision. Outcome: No sanction; Formal Warning Issued.
AI Use
Plaintiff, opposing motions to dismiss, filed a brief containing three fake federal case citations. Defendants raised the issue in their reply, suggesting use of ChatGPT or a similar tool. Plaintiff did not deny the accusation.
Hallucination Details
Three nonexistent cases were cited. Each cited case name and number was fictitious; none of the real cases matching those citations involved remotely related issues.
Ruling/Sanction
The court issued a formal warning to Plaintiff: any future filings containing fabricated citations or quotations will result in sanctions, including striking of filings, monetary penalties, or dismissal. No sanction imposed for this first occurrence, acknowledging pro se status and likely ignorance of AI risks.
Key Judicial Reasoning
Reliance on nonexistent precedent, even by pro se litigants, is an abuse of the adversarial system. The court cited Mata v. Avianca and Park v. Kim as establishing the principle that hallucinated case citations undermine judicial integrity and waste opposing parties’ and courts' resources. Plaintiff was formally warned, not excused.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with No sanction; Formal Warning Issued in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateJul 26, 2024
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeNo sanction; Formal Warning Issued
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
No sanction; Formal Warning Issued
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 | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Seventh Circuit case; the reporter citation corresponds to an unrelated decision.
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent FCRA statutory provision; the Court inferred she meant § 1681e(b).
- Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent FCRA statutory provision in the complaint.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit case; the reporter citation corresponds to an unrelated decision.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Ninth Circuit case; the reporter citation corresponds to an unrelated decision.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a nonexistent Seventh Circuit case; the reporter citation corresponds to an unrelated decision. Outcome: No sanction; Formal Warning Issued.
- Why does Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations involving Unidentified with No sanction; Formal Warning Issued in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions?
- 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 Dukuray v. Experian Information Solutions 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.