Endure Industries, Inc. v. Defense Health Agency
ASBCA · Mar 23, 2026
What happened in this matter?
The ASBCA issued a formal warning to the pro se appellant regarding the use of generative AI in legal filings. The Board declined to strike the brief or impose further sanctions, choosing instead to disregard the hallucinated and misrepresented citations while deciding the underlying motion to dismiss on its merits.
- Why the court cared
- The Board reasoned that while it possesses broad authority to impose sanctions for the submission of inaccurate or fake citations, it exercised discretion to avoid striking the brief. It determined that the appellant's pro se status and the nature of the arguments warranted a warning rather than more severe sanctions, while explicitly noting that future litigants should not expect similar leniency.
- Why it matters now
- This case serves as a significant precedent for the ASBCA's stance on AI-assisted drafting. It clarifies that pro se litigants are not exempt from the duty of candor and that the Board will actively monitor and warn against the use of hallucinated legal authorities.
Why this matter is tracked
In an appeal before the Armed Services Board of Contract Appeals (ASBCA), the appellant, Endure Industries, Inc., appearing pro se, submitted a brief containing multiple hallucinated and misrepresented legal citations. The Board identified that the appellant cited a nonexistent case, 'BMS, Inc. v. United States,' and mischaracterized the holdings of several real cases, including PGBA, LLC v. United States and Russell Corp. v. United States, to support its contract claims. The appellant admitted to using generative AI to assist in drafting the brief. While the Board noted its authority to impose sanctions, including striking the filing, it opted to ignore the inaccurate citations and address the merits, issuing a stern warning regarding the duty of candor and accuracy in AI-assisted filings.
This case serves as a significant precedent for the ASBCA's stance on AI-assisted drafting. It clarifies that pro se litigants are not exempt from the duty of candor and that the Board will actively monitor and warn against the use of hallucinated legal authorities.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The appellant admitted to using a generative AI program.
The matter came before the ASBCA on the government's motion to dismiss the appellant's complaint for failure to state a claim. The Board issued an order to show cause regarding the appellant's use of AI-generated citations before issuing its final opinion on the motion.
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited PGBA, LLC v. United States to argue procurement structure favored incumbents and rendered participation illusory; Board noted PGBA is a bid protest decision about award protest procedures and does not support Endure's contract argument.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Russell Corp. v. United States as if it held that an implied-in-fact contract existed when government directed procurement terms; Board noted Russell in fact found no contract and ruled against the contractor.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cited a nonexistent decision, "BMS, Inc. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 33 (1987)"; Board found the case does not exist and that the nearby reporter citation corresponds to Johns-Manville, which does not support Endure's asserted propositions.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Attributed supportive legal statements to the fake BMS citation and to Johns-Manville that were actually either dicta or derived from the contractor's proposed findings; Johns-Manville ultimately ruled against the contractor.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena to support that the government cannot impose procurement controls while denying a contract; Board observed T. Brown involved an existing express contract and contract interpretation, not a denial of contract.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Endure Industries, Inc. v. Defense Health Agency?
- The ASBCA issued a formal warning to the pro se appellant regarding the use of generative AI in legal filings. The Board declined to strike the brief or impose further sanctions, choosing instead to disregard the hallucinated and misrepresented citations while deciding the underlying motion to dismiss on its merits.
- Why does Endure Industries, Inc. v. Defense Health Agency matter for legal AI risk?
- This case serves as a significant precedent for the ASBCA's stance on AI-assisted drafting. It clarifies that pro se litigants are not exempt from the duty of candor and that the Board will actively monitor and warn against the use of hallucinated legal authorities.
- What does the public record establish about Endure Industries, Inc. v. Defense Health Agency?
- 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 Endure Industries, Inc. v. Defense Health Agency 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.