Ferm v. Cameron
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
D. Utah · Sep 8, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Second Circuit authority and attributed quotations to cases that, according to the Court, were either inaccurate or nonexistent in the cited decisions. The Court did not identify the individual case names or quotations in this order. Outcome: Warning: the court found the plaintiff's quotations inaccurate or non-existent in the cited cases, reminded him he had already been cautioned, and warned him again (Doc. 23, pp. 2-3).
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Warning: the court found the plaintiff's quotations inaccurate or non-existent in the cited cases, reminded him he had already been cautioned, and warned him again (Doc. 23, pp. 2-3). The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court found the plaintiff's quotations inaccurate or non-existent in the cited cases, reminded him he had already been cautioned, and warned him again (Doc. 23, pp. 2-3) in D. Utah. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Second Circuit authority and attributed quotations to cases that, according to the Court, were either inaccurate or nonexistent in the cited decisions. The Court did not identify the individual case names or quotations in this order. Outcome: Warning: the court found the plaintiff's quotations inaccurate or non-existent in the cited cases, reminded him he had already been cautioned, and warned him again (Doc. 23, pp. 2-3).
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court found the plaintiff's quotations inaccurate or non-existent in the cited cases, reminded him he had already been cautioned, and warned him again (Doc. 23, pp. 2-3) in D. Utah. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
Corrected 2026-11-02: see the corrections log.
What the record establishes about AI use
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Warning: the court found the plaintiff's quotations inaccurate or non-existent in the cited cases, reminded him he had already been cautioned, and warned him again (Doc. 23, pp. 2-3)
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 | Plaintiff cited Second Circuit authority and attributed quotations to cases that, according to the Court, were either inaccurate or nonexistent in the cited decisions. The Court did not identify the individual case names or quotations in this order.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Ferm v. Cameron?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Second Circuit authority and attributed quotations to cases that, according to the Court, were either inaccurate or nonexistent in the cited decisions. The Court did not identify the individual case names or quotations in this order. Outcome: Warning: the court found the plaintiff's quotations inaccurate or non-existent in the cited cases, reminded him he had already been cautioned, and warned him again (Doc. 23, pp. 2-3).
- Why does Ferm v. Cameron matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Warning: the court found the plaintiff's quotations inaccurate or non-existent in the cited cases, reminded him he had already been cautioned, and warned him again (Doc. 23, pp. 2-3) in D. Utah. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Ferm v. Cameron?
- 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 Ferm v. Cameron 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.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.