AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMacroCharts Research LLC v. Tony Chou
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 85/100. 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

MacroCharts Research LLC v. Tony Chou

N.D. California · Jan 26, 2026

CA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsothertrialWarning
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court declined to impose sanctions against the pro se defendant for citing nonexistent legal authority, finding no evidence of bad faith. Instead, the court issued a warning, instructing the defendant to verify the accuracy of all legal authorities cited in future filings.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Chou's opposition contained nonexistent legal authorities; Plaintiff identified the 'nonexistent' or 'hallucinated' citations and Chou subsequently filed an errata removing them. The Court called the citations 'nonexistent' but declined sanctions.
Why it matters now
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Why this matter is tracked

In a copyright infringement action, the defendant, appearing pro se, submitted an opposition containing nonexistent legal authorities. The plaintiff identified these fabricated citations in its reply and requested sanctions. The defendant subsequently filed an errata to remove the inaccurate citations. The court declined to impose monetary sanctions, finding no evidence of bad faith, but characterized the defendant's filing as irresponsible. The court issued a formal warning to the defendant, directing him to verify the accuracy of legal authorities in future filings. The court also granted the plaintiff's motion for alternate service by email, noting the defendant's prior consent to jurisdiction and the plaintiff's diligent efforts to effect service through other means.

Operational lesson

This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Warning.

Record details

CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
Explore CAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtN.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJan 26, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeThe court denied the request for monetary sanctions and issued a warning to the pro se defendant regarding the verification of legal authorities.
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

Order granting plaintiff's motion for alternate service and addressing plaintiff's request for sanctions against the defendant.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Chou's opposition contained nonexistent legal authorities; Plaintiff identified the 'nonexistent' or 'hallucinated' citations and Chou subsequently filed an errata removing them. The Court called the citations 'nonexistent' but declined sanctions.

Questions this record answers

What happened in MacroCharts Research LLC v. Tony Chou?
The court declined to impose sanctions against the pro se defendant for citing nonexistent legal authority, finding no evidence of bad faith. Instead, the court issued a warning, instructing the defendant to verify the accuracy of all legal authorities cited in future filings.
Why does MacroCharts Research LLC v. Tony Chou matter for legal AI risk?
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in N.D. California, with the listed outcome: Warning.
What does the public record establish about MacroCharts Research LLC v. Tony Chou?
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 MacroCharts Research LLC v. Tony Chou 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.

Jane Doe v. Taro Pharmaceuticals U.S.A., Inc.N.D. California · Nov 25, 2025same court · pro se + fake citationsAdrienne Hankins v. Dentons US LLP, et al.N.D. California · Jun 22, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsGregoire v. Board of Trustees of SF BARTN.D. California · May 6, 2026same court · fake citations + otherNajafpir v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A.N.D. California · Apr 3, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSaqib Kafeel v. Apple Inc., et al.N.D. California · Apr 1, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsSebastian Rako v. VMware LLC (2)N.D. California · Feb 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations