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: Valsartan
D. New Jersey · Sep 3, 2025
NJ / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources generated by an AI tool; court found the sources were fabricated due to lack of verification. Outcome: Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied. The Special Master found that Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources produced by an AI tool without adequate verification. The court concluded the opinions themselves were otherwise reliable and denied exclusion, while allowing cross-examination and noting that an award of costs might be appropriate.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Vet expert reports for AI-generated citations before endorsing them; cross-examination exposure alone can sink credibility.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources generated by an AI tool; court found the sources were fabricated due to lack of verification. Outcome: Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied. The Special Master found that Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources produced by an AI tool without adequate verification. The court concluded the opinions themselves were otherwise reliable and denied exclusion, while allowing cross-examination and noting that an award of costs might be appropriate.
Operational lesson
Vet expert reports for AI-generated citations before endorsing them; cross-examination exposure alone can sink credibility.
Record details
New JerseySingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. New Jersey
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateSep 3, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeExpert
OutcomeMotion to exclude Expert opinions denied
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
Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources generated by an AI tool; court found the sources were fabricated due to lack of verification.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in In re: Valsartan?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources generated by an AI tool; court found the sources were fabricated due to lack of verification. Outcome: Motion to exclude Expert opinions denied. The Special Master found that Dr. Sawyer cited non-existent sources produced by an AI tool without adequate verification. The court concluded the opinions themselves were otherwise reliable and denied exclusion, while allowing cross-examination and noting that an award of costs might be appropriate.
- Why does In re: Valsartan matter for legal AI risk?
- Vet expert reports for AI-generated citations before endorsing them; cross-examination exposure alone can sink credibility.
- What does the public record establish about In re: Valsartan?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is a secondary or other public source and should be checked against the docket where available. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this In re: Valsartan summary?
- The recorded source is reason.com. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.