Kohls v. Ellison
D. Minnesota · Jan 10, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- D. Minnesota
- Record ID
- kohls-v-ellison-2025-01-10
- Observed outcome
- Expert Declaration Excluded
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
Outcome: Expert Declaration Excluded. AI UseProfessor Jeff Hancock, a Stanford University expert on AI and misinformation, used GPT-4o to assist in drafting an expert declaration submitted by the Minnesota Attorney General's office in defense of a state law regulating AI deepfakes in elections.Hallucination DetailsThe declaration contained citations to three non-existent academic articles, apparently generated when the AI misinterpreted Hancock's notes to himself (e.g., "[cite]") as prompts to insert references.…
The court found it "particularly troubling" that the expert exercised less care with a court filing than with academic work. While not faulting the use of AI itself, the court stressed the need for independent judgment and verification, stating the incident was a reminder that Rule 11's "inquiry reasonable under the circumstances" might now require attorneys to ask witnesses about their AI use and verification steps. The irony of an AI misinformation expert falling victim to AI hallucinations in a case about AI dangers was noted
Ask every expert witness about AI use and verification; a struck declaration can sink the underlying case.
Failure modes and consequences
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Reported
- Recorded tool
- GPT-4o
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Expert Declaration Excluded
reason.com
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
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
GPT-4o is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
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.
Latest evidence review: Secondary Source Only (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Apply the same source-checking controls to GPT-4o output as to any other research input.
- Read the linked source and subsequent docket history before relying on this record for legal work.