Which source supports this In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction 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.

HomeCasesIn re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation

N.D. California · Feb 17, 2026

CA / federal Editorial impact: low fake citations misrepresented authority tort trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court denied the defendants' motion to exclude the expert's testimony based on AI-generated citation errors. The judge determined that the errors were not grounds for exclusion and ruled that the defendants could instead challenge the reliability of the citations through cross-examination at trial.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Deposition admission that some academic articles cited by Osborne do not exist; defendants attribute those citations to AI-generated fabrications; court noted plaintiffs said citations were corrected and declined to exclude the expert on that basis. || Misrepresented: Other | Other incorrect/miscited references in Osborne's report attributed to use of an AI citation tool; court treated these as citation-formatting errors, not grounds for exclusion, and allowed cross-examination.
Why it matters now: Expert reports must be cite-audited before service; AI citation-formatters have already produced fake academic sources on the record.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Deposition admission that some academic articles cited by Osborne do not exist; defendants attribute those citations to AI-generated fabrications; court noted plaintiffs said citations were corrected and declined to exclude the expert on that basis. Outcome: Court declined to exclude the expert based on the AI-generated/incorrect citations; issue reserved for cross-examination; motion to exclude denied.. Defendants contended that Dr. Brian Osborne relied on nonexistent academic articles and miscited sources generated by an AI citation tool. Plaintiffs said the errors were formatting miscites from an AI citation tool and were corrected. The Court declined to exclude Osborne's opinions on this basis, permitting defendants to explore the issue on cross-examination and barring any regurgitation of hearsay at trial.

Operational lesson

Expert reports must be cite-audited before service; AI citation-formatters have already produced fake academic sources on the record.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope

Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtN.D. California

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit9th Circuit

DateFeb 17, 2026

AI toolUnidentified AI citation tool

Party typeExpert

OutcomeMotion to exclude the expert based on AI-generated citation errors was denied; the issue was reserved for cross-examination.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

The court refers to the use of an AI citation tool.

Procedural posture

Order denying defendants' Rule 702 motion to exclude school district experts.

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.

Fabricated: Doctrinal Work | Deposition admission that some academic articles cited by Osborne do not exist; defendants attribute those citations to AI-generated fabrications; court noted plaintiffs said citations were corrected and declined to exclude the expert on that basis.
Misrepresented: Other | Other incorrect/miscited references in Osborne's report attributed to use of an AI citation tool; court treated these as citation-formatting errors, not grounds for exclusion, and allowed cross-examination.

Questions this record answers

What happened in In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation?: The Court denied the defendants' motion to exclude the expert's testimony based on AI-generated citation errors. The judge determined that the errors were not grounds for exclusion and ruled that the defendants could instead challenge the reliability of the citations through cross-examination at trial.
Why does In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation matter for legal AI risk?: Expert reports must be cite-audited before service; AI citation-formatters have already produced fake academic sources on the record.
What does the public record establish about In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction 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: Social Media Adolescent Addiction 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.

Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (2)N.D. California · Apr 28, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Hang Zhang v. Daniel DriscollN.D. California · Jan 14, 2026same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Marc Henri David v. George Chiala Farms, Inc.N.D. California · Nov 7, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Thomas Joseph Goddard v. Sares-Regis Group, Inc., et al.N.D. California · Oct 21, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Anthony C. Hill v. Workday, Inc. (1)N.D. California · Sep 5, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc.N.D. California · Jul 30, 2025same court · fake citations + misrepresented authority

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open N.D. California profile Explore jurisdiction

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