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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Fox v. Assum
Israel · May 14, 2025
IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited particulars of an apparently non-existent ('imaginary') judgment; the court said it was not just a wrong case or party names, suspected AI use, and demanded a clearer explanation. Outcome: No formal sanction; request by court for explanation; partial costs awarded against the defendant.
- Why the court cared
- While the procedural error did not warrant barring the defendant’s claim against a third party, the court emphasized that referencing a fictional legal source is a serious issue requiring scrutiny. The opinion signals a growing judicial intolerance for unverified AI-assisted legal drafting in Israeli courts
- Why it matters now
- Israeli court ordered 1,200 ILS costs and demanded formal explanation for imaginary judgment; unverified AI drafting now triggers show-cause orders.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited particulars of an apparently non-existent ('imaginary') judgment; the court said it was not just a wrong case or party names, suspected AI use, and demanded a clearer explanation. Outcome: No formal sanction; request by court for explanation; partial costs awarded against the defendant.
AI Use
In a filing related to a third-party notice, the defendant cited a judgment that did not exist. The judge clarified that this was not simply a mistaken citation or party confusion, but rather a reference to an entirely fictional judgment. The court explicitly stated: “It is not clear how such an error occurs, except through the use of artificial intelligence.”
Ruling/Sanction
The court permitted the defendant to proceed with the third-party notice but ordered partial costs (₪1,200) to be paid to the plaintiff due to procedural irregularities. The judge demanded a formal explanation of how the fictitious citation was introduced, in order to prevent recurrence
Key Judicial Reasoning
While the procedural error did not warrant barring the defendant’s claim against a third party, the court emphasized that referencing a fictional legal source is a serious issue requiring scrutiny. The opinion signals a growing judicial intolerance for unverified AI-assisted legal drafting in Israeli courts.
Operational lesson
Israeli court ordered 1,200 ILS costs and demanded formal explanation for imaginary judgment; unverified AI drafting now triggers show-cause orders.
Record details
CourtIsrael
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 14, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeNo formal sanction; request by court for explanation; partial costs awarded against the defendant
Known amountNot recorded
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
No formal sanction; request by court for explanation; partial costs awarded against the defendant
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 cited particulars of an apparently non-existent ('imaginary') judgment; the court said it was not just a wrong case or party names, suspected AI use, and demanded a clearer explanation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Fox v. Assum?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Defendant cited particulars of an apparently non-existent ('imaginary') judgment; the court said it was not just a wrong case or party names, suspected AI use, and demanded a clearer explanation. Outcome: No formal sanction; request by court for explanation; partial costs awarded against the defendant.
- Why does Fox v. Assum matter for legal AI risk?
- Israeli court ordered 1,200 ILS costs and demanded formal explanation for imaginary judgment; unverified AI drafting now triggers show-cause orders.
- What does the public record establish about Fox v. Assum?
- 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 Fox v. Assum 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.