Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)
CRT · Jul 16, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- CRT
- Record ID
- giggs-v-michel-dba-soma-md-advanced-medical-aesthetics-2026-07-16
- Observed outcome
- The applicant's claims were dismissed in their entirety, and no order for costs or expenses was made as the respondent abandoned her claim for reimbursement.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Tribunal dismissed the applicant's claims in their entirety. The decision-maker explicitly identified the applicant's reliance on likely AI-generated citations and misrepresented legal authorities as a failure to provide a valid legal basis for her arguments, ultimately ruling that the applicant failed to prove negligence or breach of contract.
The Tribunal found that the applicant's cited authorities either did not exist or did not support the propositions claimed. Specifically, the Tribunal identified that a cited case (Panchal v. Singh) was a hallucination of a different case (Roofix Services Inc. v. Mike Stanfield). Consequently, the Tribunal determined it had no obligation to address these arguments and proceeded to evaluate the merits based on the remaining evidence, finding the applicant failed to meet the burden of proof for professional negligence.
This case illustrates the risks of pro se litigants using AI tools to generate legal submissions without verification. It provides a clear example of a tribunal identifying and discounting hallucinated citations while maintaining a focus on the underlying evidentiary burden.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Small claims adjudication by the Civil Resolution Tribunal (CRT) conducted via written submissions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The Tribunal identified the citations as likely hallucinations generated by artificial intelligence.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.