M. [C] c/ CAF de la [Dpt CAF]
TJ Périgueux · Dec 18, 2025
What happened in this matter?
The court identified that the claimant submitted non-existent jurisprudence references, likely generated by AI. The judge explicitly flagged these as 'hallucinations' and formally advised the claimant and his counsel to verify all legal citations against official databases before filing, noting that the cited pourvoi n°16-26694 did not correspond to the decision claimed.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited jurisprudence references that did not correspond to published decisions; the court flagged the references as likely AI-generated 'hallucinations' and gave pourvoi n°16-26694 as an example of a misreferenced decision.
- Why it matters now
- French courts now publicly flag AI hallucinations by pourvoi number; verify every jurisprudence reference in the official database.
Why this matter is tracked
In a dispute regarding an alleged overpayment of disability benefits (AAH), the claimant challenged the CAF's decision, citing various jurisprudence references to support his procedural claims. The Tribunal Judiciaire de Périgueux annulled the control procedure and the resulting debt, finding that the CAF failed to comply with mandatory information obligations under Article L114-21 of the Social Security Code. During the proceedings, the court noted that the claimant's cited jurisprudence references were not found in official databases and appeared to be AI-generated 'hallucinations,' specifically citing a misreferenced Cour de cassation decision. The court explicitly warned the claimant and his counsel to verify all references obtained via AI or search engines against official sources to avoid such errors.
French courts now publicly flag AI hallucinations by pourvoi number; verify every jurisprudence reference in the official database.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
The court identified the use of AI for legal research.
Judgment rendered by the Tribunal Judiciaire de Périgueux on December 18, 2025, following a hearing on November 13, 2025, regarding a challenge to a CAF debt notification.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | The claimant cited jurisprudence references that did not correspond to published decisions; the court flagged the references as likely AI-generated 'hallucinations' and gave pourvoi n°16-26694 as an example of a misreferenced decision.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in M. [C] c/ CAF de la [Dpt CAF]?
- The court identified that the claimant submitted non-existent jurisprudence references, likely generated by AI. The judge explicitly flagged these as 'hallucinations' and formally advised the claimant and his counsel to verify all legal citations against official databases before filing, noting that the cited pourvoi n°16-26694 did not correspond to the decision claimed.
- Why does M. [C] c/ CAF de la [Dpt CAF] matter for legal AI risk?
- French courts now publicly flag AI hallucinations by pourvoi number; verify every jurisprudence reference in the official database.
- What does the public record establish about M. [C] c/ CAF de la [Dpt CAF]?
- 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 M. [C] c/ CAF de la [Dpt CAF] 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.