HomeCasesLiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone

S.D. New York · Jun 9, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesbar referralother

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Struck motions contained hallucinated, non-existent case citations asserted as authority; court found no real authority supporting the arguments. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateJun 9, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeAdverse Costs Order; Bar Referral

Known amount$80,056

Professional sanctionYes

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

Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral

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.

Fabricated: Case Law | Struck motions contained hallucinated, non-existent case citations asserted as authority; court found no real authority supporting the arguments.
Fabricated: Case Law | Filings contained non-existent quotations attributed to cases (fabricated quotations) that could not be verified by the court.
Fabricated: Other | Documents exhibited formatting identical to AI output and included remnants of drafting prompts, indicating AI-generated submissions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone?: Fabricated: Case Law | Struck motions contained hallucinated, non-existent case citations asserted as authority; court found no real authority supporting the arguments. Outcome: Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral.
Why does LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and fabricated quotes involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Adverse Costs Order; Bar Referral in S.D. New York, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone?: 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 LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone 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.

Cartagena v. Dixon, Blackburn, and T.A. Blackburn Law (2)S.D. New York · Jul 10, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Viral Bhagat v. Anuja Sharad ShahS.D. New York · Apr 6, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Andrea K. Tantaros v. Fox News Network, LLC, et al.S.D. New York · Mar 27, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Fecteau v. Safety National Casualty CorporationS.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes Donte McClellon v. E. Rickard, Warden of FCI Otisville, et al.S.D. New York · Mar 11, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotes

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court Open jurisdiction map

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

Jurisdiction contextThe state marker is derived from the structured case record.

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateJun 9, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeAdverse Costs Order; Bar Referral

Known amount$80,056

Professional sanctionYes

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Struck motions contained hallucinated, non-existent case citations asserted as authority; court found no real authority supporting the arguments.

Fabricated: Case Law | Filings contained non-existent quotations attributed to cases (fabricated quotations) that could not be verified by the court.

Fabricated: Other | Documents exhibited formatting identical to AI output and included remnants of drafting prompts, indicating AI-generated submissions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone?

Why does LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone?

Which source supports this LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone 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.