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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Mattox v. Product Innovation Research
E.D. Oklahoma · Oct 22, 2025
OK / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authoritytort
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no case under this citation; similar Tenth Circuit decision exists but does not contain the quoted law. Outcome: Pleadings struck; public reprimands; monetary sanctions; remedial filing and certification requirements. The Court found 28 false or misleading citations across 11 pleadings (14 fabricated, 14 erroneous/misquoted). Mr. Howie admitted use of ChatGPT and failure to verify citations. The Court applied Rule 11(b) and its AI framework (verification, candor/correction, accountability) and imposed sanctions and restitution. Fines of 3,000, 2,000, and 1,000 USD on individual attorneys, plus opposing party's costs and fees,
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Pleadings struck; public reprimands; monetary sanctions; remedial filing and certification requirements; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- Ban ChatGPT for legal research firm-wide; 28 bad cites across 11 pleadings cost $28K and public reprimands.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no case under this citation; similar Tenth Circuit decision exists but does not contain the quoted law. Outcome: Pleadings struck; public reprimands; monetary sanctions; remedial filing and certification requirements. The Court found 28 false or misleading citations across 11 pleadings (14 fabricated, 14 erroneous/misquoted). Mr. Howie admitted use of ChatGPT and failure to verify citations. The Court applied Rule 11(b) and its AI framework (verification, candor/correction, accountability) and imposed sanctions and restitution. Fines of 3,000, 2,000, and 1,000 USD on individual attorneys, plus opposing party's costs and fees,
Operational lesson
Ban ChatGPT for legal research firm-wide; 28 bad cites across 11 pleadings cost $28K and public reprimands.
Record details
OklahomaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Oklahoma
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit10th Circuit
DateOct 22, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomePleadings struck; public reprimands; monetary sanctions; remedial filing and certification requirements
Known amount$28,495
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Pleadings struck; public reprimands; monetary sanctions; remedial filing and certification requirements
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
12 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no case under this citation; similar Tenth Circuit decision exists but does not contain the quoted law.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Citation combined/ conflated unrelated authorities; court found no case at that citation and similar decisions do not support the quoted law.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no case under the cited name and citation; citation appears fabricated/mismatched.
- Fabricated: Case Law | No Tenth Circuit decision exists at that citation; the docketed citation corresponds to an unrelated out-of-circuit case.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no case under that citation; similar named district decision exists but does not support plaintiffs' asserted rule.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court located no case under this citation; authority appears fabricated.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited the wrong year/citation for the decision; court identified correct authority.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court determined the specific language plaintiffs attributed to the case does not appear in the opinion cited.
Show 4 additional discrepancies
- False Quotes: Case Law | Court found the law plaintiffs claimed derived from this Supreme Court opinion was not present in the opinion as quoted.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Court concluded the decision does not hold the proposition plaintiffs attributed to it.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no decision at this federal reporter/citation; cited authority is incorrect or nonexistent.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiffs cited an incorrect citation; the court identified the correct citation and that the cited version was erroneous.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Mattox v. Product Innovation Research?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found no case under this citation; similar Tenth Circuit decision exists but does not contain the quoted law. Outcome: Pleadings struck; public reprimands; monetary sanctions; remedial filing and certification requirements. The Court found 28 false or misleading citations across 11 pleadings (14 fabricated, 14 erroneous/misquoted). Mr. Howie admitted use of ChatGPT and failure to verify citations. The Court applied Rule 11(b) and its AI framework (verification, candor/correction, accountability) and imposed sanctions and restitution. Fines of 3,000, 2,000, and 1,000 USD on individual attorneys, plus opposing party's costs and fees,
- Why does Mattox v. Product Innovation Research matter for legal AI risk?
- Ban ChatGPT for legal research firm-wide; 28 bad cites across 11 pleadings cost $28K and public reprimands.
- What does the public record establish about Mattox v. Product Innovation Research?
- 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 Mattox v. Product Innovation Research 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.