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.
Harris v. Take-Two Interactive Software
D. Colorado · May 6, 2025
CO / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed quotations to cited cases that, per Take-Two and the Court, do not contain those quotes; plaintiff later withdrew or clarified he was not quoting directly, and replacement citations did not support his argument. Outcome: Warning. Court held that: "The use of fictitious quotes or cases in filings may subject a party, including a pro se party, to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as “pro se litigants are subject to Rule 11 just as attorneys are.”
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Warning; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Pro-se Rule 11 warnings are multiplying; treat them as early-warning indicators for your pro-se opposing parties.
Why this matter is tracked
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed quotations to cited cases that, per Take-Two and the Court, do not contain those quotes; plaintiff later withdrew or clarified he was not quoting directly, and replacement citations did not support his argument. Outcome: Warning. Court held that: "The use of fictitious quotes or cases in filings may subject a party, including a pro se party, to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as “pro se litigants are subject to Rule 11 just as attorneys are.”
Operational lesson
Pro-se Rule 11 warnings are multiplying; treat them as early-warning indicators for your pro-se opposing parties.
Record details
ColoradoSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Colorado
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateMay 6, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed quotations to cited cases that, per Take-Two and the Court, do not contain those quotes; plaintiff later withdrew or clarified he was not quoting directly, and replacement citations did not support his argument.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited cases that, per Take-Two, could not be located; the Court noted the withdrawal and cautioned that use of fictitious cases may warrant Rule 11 sanctions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Harris v. Take-Two Interactive Software?
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed quotations to cited cases that, per Take-Two and the Court, do not contain those quotes; plaintiff later withdrew or clarified he was not quoting directly, and replacement citations did not support his argument. Outcome: Warning. Court held that: "The use of fictitious quotes or cases in filings may subject a party, including a pro se party, to sanctions pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11 as “pro se litigants are subject to Rule 11 just as attorneys are.”
- Why does Harris v. Take-Two Interactive Software matter for legal AI risk?
- Pro-se Rule 11 warnings are multiplying; treat them as early-warning indicators for your pro-se opposing parties.
- What does the public record establish about Harris v. Take-Two Interactive Software?
- 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 Harris v. Take-Two Interactive Software 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.