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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho
Supremo Tribunal Federal · May 12, 2025
BrazilEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityadministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited RE 328.111/DF as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision. Outcome: Case summarily dismissed; Counsel referred to the Bar Association; Claimant ordered to pay double the costs.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Case summarily dismissed; Counsel referred to the Bar Association; Claimant ordered to pay double the costs; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- MobiOffice and similar built-in AI assistants require the same verification discipline as ChatGPT—courts treat watermarks as admission.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited RE 328.111/DF as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision. Outcome: Case summarily dismissed; Counsel referred to the Bar Association; Claimant ordered to pay double the costs.
AI Use
The petition’s pages were marked “Criado com MobiOffice.” The STF verified that MobiOffice includes a built-in AI writing assistant. Combined with the inclusion of fictitious citations, this led the Court to conclude that AI had been used and not reviewed. The judge characterized this as reckless conduct.
Hallucination Details
Claimed violations of STF precedents including RE 464.867/SP and RE 226.855/RS, which were either inapplicable or misrepresentedClaimed Súmula Vinculante 6 said something entirely false (its actual content concerns military service remuneration)Cited judgments ARE 1.218.084 AgR and RE 328.111/DF as relevant when they were either misquoted or irrelevantCourt concluded these references were invented or misrepresented, “false statements intended to mislead”
Ruling/Sanction
Rejected the complaint as manifestly inadmissibleFound that counsel likely used AI and submitted the petition without reviewOrdered notification to both the national and Bahia sections of the OABDeclared the petitioner litigated in bad faith under Article 80, V, of the Brazilian Civil Procedure CodeImposed a procedural penalty of double the initial court costsOrdered referral to dívida ativa (federal collections) if not paid.
Operational lesson
MobiOffice and similar built-in AI assistants require the same verification discipline as ChatGPT—courts treat watermarks as admission.
Record details
CourtSupremo Tribunal Federal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 12, 2025
IM
AI toolImplied use of MobiOffice's AI Assistant
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeCase summarily dismissed; Counsel referred to the Bar Association; Claimant ordered to pay double the costs
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
Implied use of MobiOffice's AI Assistant is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Case summarily dismissed; Counsel referred to the Bar Association; Claimant ordered to pay double the costs
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited RE 328.111/DF as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited ARE 1.218.084 AgR as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited RE 464.867/SP as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Petitioner attributed to SV 6 a rule on penal acquittal barring administrative sanction; the Court said SV 6 actually concerns pay for initial military service.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Petitioner invoked RE 226.855/RS as supporting penal absolution’s binding effects; the Court clarified the case addressed FGTS monetary correction from economic plans, unrelated to the issue.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petitioner cited RE 328.111/DF as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision. Outcome: Case summarily dismissed; Counsel referred to the Bar Association; Claimant ordered to pay double the costs.
- Why does Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho matter for legal AI risk?
- MobiOffice and similar built-in AI assistants require the same verification discipline as ChatGPT—courts treat watermarks as admission.
- What does the public record establish about Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho?
- The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
- Which source supports this Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho 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.