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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
MacroCharts Research LLC v. Tony Chou
N.D. California · Jan 26, 2026
CA / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsothertrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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. Outcome: Warning.
- 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
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. Outcome: Warning.
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
CourtN.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateJan 26, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
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 | 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?
- 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. Outcome: Warning.
- 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.