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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
M. [C] c/ CAF de la [Dpt CAF]
TJ Périgueux · Dec 18, 2025
FranceEditorial impact: lowfake citationspublished opinionadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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. Outcome: Warning.
- 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
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. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
French courts now publicly flag AI hallucinations by pourvoi number; verify every jurisprudence reference in the official database.
Record details
CourtTJ Périgueux
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 18, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
Correction behavior
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]?
- 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. Outcome: Warning.
- 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.