HomeCasesIn re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation

J.P.M.L. · Feb 5, 2026

/ federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authority

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML decision. Outcome: Warning.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML decision. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this JPML decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this JPML decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this Ninth Circuit decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this JPML decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief. || Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML order. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this district court decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.
Why it matters now: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in J.P.M.L., with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML decision. Outcome: Warning.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in J.P.M.L., with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

CourtJ.P.M.L.

Jurisdictionfederal

CircuitNot recorded

DateFeb 5, 2026

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

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML decision.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this JPML decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this JPML decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this Ninth Circuit decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this JPML decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.
Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML order.
False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this district court decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation?: Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML decision. Outcome: Warning.
Why does In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation matter for legal AI risk?: This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in J.P.M.L., with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation?: 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 In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation 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.

14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Seeto v. KendallD. Nevada · May 5, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Louis J. Blazy v. Department of StateCBCA · Feb 24, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Sky GardensQueensland BCCMC · Oct 29, 2025pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML decision.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this JPML decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this Ninth Circuit decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this JPML decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.

Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML order.

False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed a quotation/holding to this district court decision that the Panel found was misrepresented or fabricated in the brief.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation?

Fabricated: Case Law | Panel identified this citation in the plaintiff's brief as apparently fabricated and not an actual JPML decision. Outcome: Warning.

Why does In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation matter for legal AI risk?

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in J.P.M.L., with the listed outcome: Warning.

What does the public record establish about In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation?

Which source supports this In re: Snowflake, Inc., Data Security Breach Litigation 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.