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.
Gonen v. Ashkenazi
Tel Aviv Magistrate Court · Jan 22, 2026
IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In Gonen v. Ashkenazi, the Tel Aviv Magistrate Court rejected a claim after reviewing the party’s explanation for erroneous authorities. The court found that the alleged corrections were not corrected citations but different authorities, noted the known risks of unverified AI use, and ordered the claimant to pay NIS 5,500 in costs after the defendants had already filed their response.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law
- Why it matters now
- A dismissed claim tied to fake citations can end the matter—verify every authority before filing, even in small-claims forums.
Why this matter is tracked
In Gonen v. Ashkenazi, the Tel Aviv Magistrate Court rejected a claim after reviewing the party’s explanation for erroneous authorities. The court found that the alleged corrections were not corrected citations but different authorities, noted the known risks of unverified AI use, and ordered the claimant to pay NIS 5,500 in costs after the defendants had already filed their response.
Operational lesson
A dismissed claim tied to fake citations can end the matter—verify every authority before filing, even in small-claims forums.
Record details
CourtTel Aviv Magistrate Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJan 22, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeClaim dismissed
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
Claim dismissed
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
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Gonen v. Ashkenazi?
- In Gonen v. Ashkenazi, the Tel Aviv Magistrate Court rejected a claim after reviewing the party’s explanation for erroneous authorities. The court found that the alleged corrections were not corrected citations but different authorities, noted the known risks of unverified AI use, and ordered the claimant to pay NIS 5,500 in costs after the defendants had already filed their response.
- Why does Gonen v. Ashkenazi matter for legal AI risk?
- A dismissed claim tied to fake citations can end the matter—verify every authority before filing, even in small-claims forums.
- What does the public record establish about Gonen v. Ashkenazi?
- 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 Gonen v. Ashkenazi 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.