AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 20, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 15, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesKing v. AT&T Corp. et al.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

King v. AT&T Corp. et al.

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

W.D. Washington · Oct 13, 2026

WA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsothertrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | King cited a nonexistent district-court decision, then substituted a real Ninth Circuit decision that did not support the proposition asserted. Outcome: Certification requirement in communication with opposing counsel. Order to Show Cause is here.

Why the court cared
The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records Certification requirement in communication with opposing counsel. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Certification requirement in communication with opposing counsel in W.D. Washington. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | King cited a nonexistent district-court decision, then substituted a real Ninth Circuit decision that did not support the proposition asserted. Outcome: Certification requirement in communication with opposing counsel. Order to Show Cause is here.

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Certification requirement in communication with opposing counsel in W.D. Washington. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope
Explore WAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Washington
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateOct 13, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeCertification requirement in communication with opposing counsel
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

Certification requirement in communication with opposing counsel

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | King cited a nonexistent district-court decision, then substituted a real Ninth Circuit decision that did not support the proposition asserted.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | King cited a nonexistent district-court decision, then substituted another decision that the court found did not support the proposition asserted.
  3. Fabricated: Case Law | King cited a nonexistent citation for Gross v. CitiMortgage; the court stated that the cited case did not exist even if 'WR' were corrected to 'WL'.

Questions this record answers

What happened in King v. AT&T Corp. et al.?
Fabricated: Case Law | King cited a nonexistent district-court decision, then substituted a real Ninth Circuit decision that did not support the proposition asserted. Outcome: Certification requirement in communication with opposing counsel. Order to Show Cause is here.
Why does King v. AT&T Corp. et al. matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects pro se and fake citations with Certification requirement in communication with opposing counsel in W.D. Washington. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about King v. AT&T Corp. et al.?
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 King v. AT&T Corp. et al. 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.

Rebecca Jean v. Seattle Credit UnionW.D. Washington · Jul 15, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsCabrera Thompson v. Seattle Public SchoolsW.D. Washington · Sep 17, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsJordan Slach v. City of Battle GroundW.D. Washington · Jul 2, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsWard v. Amazon.com Services LLCW.D. Washington · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsRosa Maria Cabrera Thompson v. Seattle Public SchoolsW.D. Washington · Mar 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsRyan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (2)W.D. Washington · Mar 26, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations
Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.