Heiting v. I Am Beyond LLC
SC California · Jan 13, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- state
- Court
- SC California
- Record ID
- heiting-v-i-am-beyond-llc-2026-01-13
- Observed outcome
- The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment and issued a warning to plaintiff's counsel regarding the inclusion of fabricated legal quotations.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court identified that plaintiff's counsel included fabricated legal quotations in an opposition brief, likely due to unverified AI-generated content. Although the court declined to impose formal sanctions, it issued a warning and noted that the conduct would be a factor in evaluating counsel's adequacy for future class certification.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted a passage attributed to Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo that the court could not find in the cited opinion; court treated the quotation as an invented citation likely from AI assistance. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff quoted language attributed to In re Facebook that the court found does not appear in the cited Ninth Circuit opinion; court observed counsel likely relied on AI-generated hallucination.
Invented quotations from real cases are the new hallucination signature; verify every quoted passage against the opinion text.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Lack_of_citation_verification
- Fabricated Quotes
- Tort
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- unspecified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment in a putative class action, while simultaneously addressing counsel's inclusion of fabricated citations in the opposition brief.
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 court attributed the errors to hallucinations inherent in AI use.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Assign a responsible reviewer for AI-assisted research and drafting.