AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 17, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 13, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesMedal v. Amazon.com Services, LLC
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

Medal v. Amazon.com Services, LLC

W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2026

WA / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationscontracttrialOrdered To Show Cause
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court granted a motion for an Order to Show Cause, requiring plaintiffs' counsel to explain their use of generative AI, the verification protocols in place, and the specific circumstances surrounding the inclusion of a non-existent statutory citation in a court filing.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Legal Norm | Plaintiffs repeatedly cited '21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(6)(D)', but that subsection does not exist; Plaintiffs' counsel admitted the citation arose from insufficiently supervised LLM use and the court called the inclusion unacceptable.
Why it matters now
Supervise every associate's LLM output; admitting insufficient supervision escalates from warning to show-cause.

Why this matter is tracked

In the matter of Medal v. Amazon.com Services, LLC, the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington issued an Order to Show Cause regarding the inclusion of a non-existent legal citation in a filing. Plaintiffs' counsel included a reference to '21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(6)(D)' in their Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Stay. The court ordered counsel to explain the role of each signatory in the drafting process, the extent to which generative AI was utilized, and the specific verification mechanisms employed to ensure the accuracy of the research. The court mandated that this explanation be filed by March 18, 2026, to address the use of potentially hallucinated legal authority in court documents.

Operational lesson

Supervise every associate's LLM output; admitting insufficient supervision escalates from warning to show-cause.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope
Explore WAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtW.D. Washington
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 4, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court granted the defendant's motion for an order to show cause, requiring plaintiffs' counsel to provide a detailed explanation of their research and verification practices.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The court order references the use of generative AI without naming a specific tool.

Procedural posture

Order granting defendant's motion for an order to show cause.

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: Legal Norm | Plaintiffs repeatedly cited '21 U.S.C. § 343(r)(6)(D)', but that subsection does not exist; Plaintiffs' counsel admitted the citation arose from insufficiently supervised LLM use and the court called the inclusion unacceptable.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Medal v. Amazon.com Services, LLC?
The court granted a motion for an Order to Show Cause, requiring plaintiffs' counsel to explain their use of generative AI, the verification protocols in place, and the specific circumstances surrounding the inclusion of a non-existent statutory citation in a court filing.
Why does Medal v. Amazon.com Services, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
Supervise every associate's LLM output; admitting insufficient supervision escalates from warning to show-cause.
What does the public record establish about Medal v. Amazon.com Services, LLC?
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 Medal v. Amazon.com Services, LLC 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.

Ryan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (2)W.D. Washington · Mar 26, 2026same court · fake citations + contractRyan Adam Dixon v. MultiCare Health System (1)W.D. Washington · Mar 4, 2026same court · fake citations + contractValve Corporation v. Rothschild et al.W.D. Washington · Feb 9, 2026same court · fake citations + contractCollins v. Nova Association Management Partners LLCW.D. Washington · Jan 13, 2026same court · fake citations + contractWilliam McNae and Ronda McNae v. ARAG Insurance CompanyW.D. Washington · Nov 13, 2025same court · fake citations + contractArtur Sargsyan v. Amazon.com Inc.W.D. Washington · Oct 17, 2025same court · fake citations + contract