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.
Erik Arthur Otteson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA
D. Arizona · Jul 17, 2026
AZ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefabricated quotescontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase 'refuse[s] to articulate its reasons' to Wells Fargo v. Arizona Laborers, but that language does not appear in that opinion; the Court characterized this as likely an AI hallucination. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether quotations and pincites accurately matched the cited source. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Arizona, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase 'refuse[s] to articulate its reasons' to Wells Fargo v. Arizona Laborers, but that language does not appear in that opinion; the Court characterized this as likely an AI hallucination. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Arizona, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Arizona
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJul 17, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase 'refuse[s] to articulate its reasons' to Wells Fargo v. Arizona Laborers, but that language does not appear in that opinion; the Court characterized this as likely an AI hallucination.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Erik Arthur Otteson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA?
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed the phrase 'refuse[s] to articulate its reasons' to Wells Fargo v. Arizona Laborers, but that language does not appear in that opinion; the Court characterized this as likely an AI hallucination. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Erik Arthur Otteson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Warning in D. Arizona, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Erik Arthur Otteson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA?
- 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 Erik Arthur Otteson v. JPMorgan Chase Bank NA 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.