M. [C] c/ CAF de la [Dpt CAF]
TJ Périgueux · Dec 18, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- TJ Périgueux
- Record ID
- m-c-c-caf-de-la-dpt-caf-2025-12-18
- Observed outcome
- The court annulled the debt and the underlying control procedure due to the CAF's procedural failures, while rejecting the claimant's request for damages. The court issued a formal warning regarding the use of AI-generated citations.
- Known monetary consequence
- €3,777
Why this matter warrants attention
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.
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.
French courts now publicly flag AI hallucinations by pourvoi number; verify every jurisprudence reference in the official database.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Published Opinion
- Administrative
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- €3,777
- Procedural posture
- 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.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
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
The court identified the use of AI for legal research.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
- Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.