AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 1, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 31, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesErin Booker v. The Kroger Co.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co.

N.D. Georgia · Aug 28, 2026

GA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritytrialMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | One of four cited authorities was determined to be a nonexistent case relied upon to support a legal proposition. Outcome: Monetary Sanctions; CLE.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies fake citations and fabricated quotes and records Monetary Sanctions; CLE. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Monetary Sanctions; CLE in N.D. Georgia. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | One of four cited authorities was determined to be a nonexistent case relied upon to support a legal proposition. Outcome: Monetary Sanctions; CLE.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Monetary Sanctions; CLE in N.D. Georgia. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

GeorgiaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore GAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. Georgia
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit11th Circuit
DateAug 28, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Sanctions; CLE
Known amount$8,000
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

Monetary Sanctions; CLE

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | One of four cited authorities was determined to be a nonexistent case relied upon to support a legal proposition.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | A second highlighted authority was a fabricated case citation included in filings and cited for legal propositions.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | A third authority was an existing case whose content was misrepresented or quoted inaccurately to support counsel's position.
  4. Misrepresented: Case Law | A fourth authority consisted of misleading or false statements about the holdings of a real case authority.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co.?
Fabricated: Case Law | One of four cited authorities was determined to be a nonexistent case relied upon to support a legal proposition. Outcome: Monetary Sanctions; CLE.
Why does Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes with Monetary Sanctions; CLE in N.D. Georgia. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co.?
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 Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co. 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.

William Parker v. Patrick "Pat" Labat, et al.N.D. Georgia · Jan 21, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesTiffany Regina Ringer v. Bank of America, N.A.N.D. Georgia · Dec 30, 2025same court · fabricated quotes + misrepresented authorityIn re: Loletha Hale, Esq. (Boston v. Williams)N.D. Georgia · Oct 28, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authorityThomas v. PangburnS.D. Georgia · Oct 6, 2023same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotesTamisha Shaw v. Coast Dental of Georgia et al/SC Georgia · Jan 6, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotesHannah Renee Payne v. The StateSC Georgia · May 5, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + misrepresented authority