AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 27, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesIII SA/Kr 488/26
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 76/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

III SA/Kr 488/26

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.

WSA w Krakowie · Jul 23, 2026

PolandEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritytrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | The complainant cited case I OSK 191/22 as supporting authority, but the court stated that no judgment had yet been issued in that case and that its subject matter differed from the one claimed.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations 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 fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in WSA w Krakowie. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | The complainant cited case I OSK 191/22 as supporting authority, but the court stated that no judgment had yet been issued in that case and that its subject matter differed from the one claimed.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in WSA w Krakowie. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtWSA w Krakowie
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateJul 23, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | The complainant cited case I OSK 191/22 as supporting authority, but the court stated that no judgment had yet been issued in that case and that its subject matter differed from the one claimed.
  2. Misrepresented: Case Law | The complainant cited case I OSK 2078/19 with an incorrect decision date and attributed a different subject matter to it; the court stated that the case concerned compensation for property left beyond Poland's present borders.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | The complainant cited case III SA/Kr 1340/17 with an incorrect decision date and attributed a different subject matter to it; the court stated that the case concerned a permanent allowance.

Questions this record answers

What happened in III SA/Kr 488/26?
Fabricated: Case Law | The complainant cited case I OSK 191/22 as supporting authority, but the court stated that no judgment had yet been issued in that case and that its subject matter differed from the one claimed.
Why does III SA/Kr 488/26 matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in WSA w Krakowie. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about III SA/Kr 488/26?
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 III SA/Kr 488/26 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.

Case I SA/Kr 31/26WSA w Krakowie · Feb 23, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsM.W. v. Director of the National Tax InformationWSA w Krakowie · Jun 19, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsCredit One Finance Limited v Cheung Yiu Cho and anotherDistrict Court · Sep 15, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedKrystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al.E.D. Michigan · Aug 26, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedBrantford (City) v. Doolittle, 2026 ONCJ 440Ontario CJ · Jul 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedCCDP v. Canada AG & Frantz Saint-JeanFederal Court (Canada) · Jul 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: Unidentified

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

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.