Endure Industries, Inc. v. Defense Health Agency
ASBCA · Mar 23, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- ASBCA
- Record ID
- endure-industries-inc-v-defense-health-agency-2026-03-23
- Observed outcome
- The Board issued a warning to the appellant regarding the duty of accuracy in AI-assisted filings and proceeded to decide the motion to dismiss on the merits.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
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.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Misrepresented_legal_authority
- Failure_to_verify_citations
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- 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.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The appellant admitted to using a generative AI program.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all legal citations generated or assisted by AI tools.
- Conduct independent research to confirm the existence and precedential relevance of every case cited in a filing.
- Review the ASBCA's specific guidance on AI usage to ensure compliance with tribunal expectations for accuracy and candor.