AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 9, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 6, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesM7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, et al.
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, et al.

S.D. New York · Mar 9, 2026

NY / federalEditorial impact: mediumfabricated quotescontracttrialOrdered To Show Cause
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Court issued an order to show cause requiring counsel to explain the inclusion of two fabricated case law quotations in a memorandum. Counsel must file a declaration detailing the cause of the errors and certify that all other cited authorities have been verified for accuracy and continued validity.

Why the court cared
The Court reasoned that fabricated quotes threaten the integrity of the judicial system and that ignoring such conduct is unacceptable. The judge noted that widespread reporting on AI-related hallucinations since 2023 should have put counsel on guard, and that such errors breed distrust, potentially harming the client's interests.
Why it matters now
Certify in writing that every quoted passage was read in the cited opinion; show-cause orders follow when quotes cannot be located.

Why this matter is tracked

In M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, the S.D. New York issued an order to show cause after discovering that the plaintiffs' memorandum contained two fabricated case law quotations. The Court noted that the cited passages did not appear in the referenced opinions, NYNEX Corp. v. Discon and Int’l Railways of Cent. Am. v. United Brands Co. Expressing distress over the continued use of unverified AI-generated or hallucinated material, the Court ordered counsel to file a declaration explaining the origin of the errors and to certify that all other cited authorities were personally reviewed for accuracy, validity, and relevance. The Court reserved judgment on further sanctions pending counsel's response.

Operational lesson

Certify in writing that every quoted passage was read in the cited opinion; show-cause orders follow when quotes cannot be located.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
Explore NYOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateMar 9, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe Court ordered counsel to provide a written explanation and a certification of case law verification within fourteen days, reserving the right to impose further sanctions.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionCounsel ordered to file a declaration and certification of case law review; potential for further sanctions pending court review.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The Court identifies the issue as related to 'hallucinations' in legal research.

Procedural posture

Order to show cause issued by the District Court.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs' memorandum attributed this quoted passage to NYNEX Corp. v. Discon, but the Court found the quotation does not appear in that opinion.
  2. False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiffs' memorandum attributed this quoted passage to Int’l Railways of Cent. Am. v. United Brands Co., but the Court found the quotation does not appear in that opinion.

Questions this record answers

What happened in M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, et al.?
The Court issued an order to show cause requiring counsel to explain the inclusion of two fabricated case law quotations in a memorandum. Counsel must file a declaration detailing the cause of the errors and certify that all other cited authorities have been verified for accuracy and continued validity.
Why does M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, et al. matter for legal AI risk?
Certify in writing that every quoted passage was read in the cited opinion; show-cause orders follow when quotes cannot be located.
What does the public record establish about M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, et al.?
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 M7 Indústria e Comércio de Compensados e Laminados v. U.S. Structural Plywood Integrity Coalition, et al. 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.

Sana Hazina Butler v. Fidelity Management & Research Company LLCS.D. New York · Apr 30, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + contractFecteau v. Safety National Casualty CorporationS.D. New York · Mar 25, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + contractAvalon Holdings Corp. v. Guy GentileS.D. New York · Jan 22, 2026same court · fabricated quotes + contractBurlingame v. Argo Private Client Group, Ltd. et al.S.D. New York · Dec 17, 2025same court · fabricated quotes + contractSaregama India Ltd. v. B.A., et al.S.D. New York · Dec 3, 2025same court · fabricated quotes + contractTameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.S.D. New York · Nov 26, 2025same court · fabricated quotes + contract