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.
Kusmin L. Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.
10th Cir. CA · Feb 9, 2026
/ federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesbar referralcivil rights
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contained seven case citations that the court could not locate; court ordered appellant to produce accurate copies or explain and concluded they were fabricated by ChatGPT. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Bar Referral.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contained seven case citations that the court could not locate; court ordered appellant to produce accurate copies or explain and concluded they were fabricated by ChatGPT. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed propositions or quotations to a real case that did not contain the quoted language or stand for the cited proposition; court determined the attribution was inaccurate and resulted from AI output. || False Quotes: Case Law | A second instance where appellant attributed a quotation or proposition to an actual opinion that did not contain that material; court treated this as an AI-produced misquote and part of the reckless failure to verify authorities. || Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included seven case citations that the court could not locate; court determined they were fabricated outputs of ChatGPT. || False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed propositions and quotations to two real cases that did not contain those propositions or quotations; court found the attributions inaccurate.
- Why it matters now
- Consumer ChatGPT output in an appellate brief triggers bar referral regardless of sanction size; ban it firmwide.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contained seven case citations that the court could not locate; court ordered appellant to produce accurate copies or explain and concluded they were fabricated by ChatGPT. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Bar Referral.
Operational lesson
Consumer ChatGPT output in an appellate brief triggers bar referral regardless of sanction size; ban it firmwide.
Record details
Court10th Cir. CA
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateFeb 9, 2026
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Sanction; Bar Referral
Known amount$1,000
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Monetary Sanction; Bar Referral
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 | Brief contained seven case citations that the court could not locate; court ordered appellant to produce accurate copies or explain and concluded they were fabricated by ChatGPT.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed propositions or quotations to a real case that did not contain the quoted language or stand for the cited proposition; court determined the attribution was inaccurate and resulted from AI output.
- False Quotes: Case Law | A second instance where appellant attributed a quotation or proposition to an actual opinion that did not contain that material; court treated this as an AI-produced misquote and part of the reckless failure to verify authorities.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's brief included seven case citations that the court could not locate; court determined they were fabricated outputs of ChatGPT.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Appellant attributed propositions and quotations to two real cases that did not contain those propositions or quotations; court found the attributions inaccurate.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Kusmin L. Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Brief contained seven case citations that the court could not locate; court ordered appellant to produce accurate copies or explain and concluded they were fabricated by ChatGPT. Outcome: Monetary Sanction; Bar Referral.
- Why does Kusmin L. Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- Consumer ChatGPT output in an appellate brief triggers bar referral regardless of sanction size; ban it firmwide.
- What does the public record establish about Kusmin L. Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.?
- 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.
- Which source supports this Kusmin L. Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc. 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.