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
Allegation status: this record tracks a public allegation or unresolved matter. It must not be described as an adjudicated finding.
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.
Esteme v. Aquitaine Co-Investment
T. com. Bordeaux · Jan 9, 2026
FranceEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In Esteme v. Aquitaine Co-Investment, the Bordeaux Commercial Court considered a dispute in which the defendant asked that claims based on fourteen non-existent judicial decisions be excluded. The court rejected the claimants’ case and ordered ETSEME SAS and related parties to pay the opposing company under article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the costs of the proceedings.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant alleged that Plaintiffs' submissions relied on 14 non-existent citations
- Why it matters now
- Allegations of 14 fake cites in one brief signal systemic AI reliance—audit counsel's entire practice, not just the filing.
Why this matter is tracked
In Esteme v. Aquitaine Co-Investment, the Bordeaux Commercial Court considered a dispute in which the defendant asked that claims based on fourteen non-existent judicial decisions be excluded. The court rejected the claimants’ case and ordered ETSEME SAS and related parties to pay the opposing company under article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the costs of the proceedings.
Operational lesson
Allegations of 14 fake cites in one brief signal systemic AI reliance—audit counsel's entire practice, not just the filing.
Record details
CourtT. com. Bordeaux
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 9, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant alleged that Plaintiffs' submissions relied on 14 non-existent citations
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Esteme v. Aquitaine Co-Investment?
- In Esteme v. Aquitaine Co-Investment, the Bordeaux Commercial Court considered a dispute in which the defendant asked that claims based on fourteen non-existent judicial decisions be excluded. The court rejected the claimants’ case and ordered ETSEME SAS and related parties to pay the opposing company under article 700 of the Code of Civil Procedure as well as the costs of the proceedings.
- Why does Esteme v. Aquitaine Co-Investment matter for legal AI risk?
- Allegations of 14 fake cites in one brief signal systemic AI reliance—audit counsel's entire practice, not just the filing.
- What does the public record establish about Esteme v. Aquitaine Co-Investment?
- Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
- Which source supports this Esteme v. Aquitaine Co-Investment 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.