Loading AI Vortex evidence…
Preparing the requested public record.
Public trackerEvidence checked Jul 23, 2026 · Latest decision Jul 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation
N.D. California · Feb 17, 2026
CA / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytorttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.…
- 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
CourtN.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateFeb 17, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeExpert
OutcomeCourt declined to exclude the expert based on the AI-generated/incorrect citations; issue reserved for cross-examination; motion to exclude denied.
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
Court declined to exclude the expert based on the AI-generated/incorrect citations; issue reserved for cross-examination; motion to exclude denied.
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?
- 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.…
- 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.