I OPP 7/26
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Paweł Kowalski; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
NSA · Apr 30, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | The submissions attributed legal propositions to cited judicial decisions that, on the court's review, those decisions did not contain. The court treated this as an example of AI-generated misleading or hallucinated legal content, although it did not identify the individual decisions or specify the incorrect propositions.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies pro se and misrepresented authority and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in NSA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | The submissions attributed legal propositions to cited judicial decisions that, on the court's review, those decisions did not contain. The court treated this as an example of AI-generated misleading or hallucinated legal content, although it did not identify the individual decisions or specify the incorrect propositions.
This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in NSA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The submissions attributed legal propositions to cited judicial decisions that, on the court's review, those decisions did not contain. The court treated this as an example of AI-generated misleading or hallucinated legal content, although it did not identify the individual decisions or specify the incorrect propositions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in I OPP 7/26?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | The submissions attributed legal propositions to cited judicial decisions that, on the court's review, those decisions did not contain. The court treated this as an example of AI-generated misleading or hallucinated legal content, although it did not identify the individual decisions or specify the incorrect propositions.
- Why does I OPP 7/26 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects pro se and misrepresented authority with a recorded judicial or procedural response in NSA. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about I OPP 7/26?
- 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 I OPP 7/26 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.
This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.
Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases
One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.