In re: Social Media Adolescent Addiction Litigation
N.D. California · Feb 17, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- N.D. California
- Record ID
- in-re-social-media-adolescent-addiction-litigation-2026-02-17
- Observed outcome
- Motion to exclude the expert based on AI-generated citation errors was denied; the issue was reserved for cross-examination.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
Expert reports must be cite-audited before service; AI citation-formatters have already produced fake academic sources on the record.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Tort
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified AI citation tool
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Order denying defendants' Rule 702 motion to exclude school district experts.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court refers to the use of an AI citation tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.