HomeCasesMeital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd

Ashdod Magistrate Court · Aug 12, 2025

IsraelEditorial impact: mediumfake citationscontracttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's statement of claim cited non-existent court decisions generated via AI; counsel admitted this and the court accepted the defendant's factual contention. Outcome: The court imposed a monetary penalty and dismissed the fabricated evidence..

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is The court imposed a monetary penalty and dismissed the fabricated evidence.; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: Admitting AI fabrication post-filing still costs you money and your evidence — verify before the statement of claim goes out.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Admitting AI fabrication post-filing still costs you money and your evidence — verify before the statement of claim goes out.

Record details

CourtAshdod Magistrate Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateAug 12, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe court imposed a monetary penalty and dismissed the fabricated evidence.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

The court imposed a monetary penalty and dismissed the fabricated evidence.

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 | Plaintiff's statement of claim cited non-existent court decisions generated via AI; counsel admitted this and the court accepted the defendant's factual contention.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd?: Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's statement of claim cited non-existent court decisions generated via AI; counsel admitted this and the court accepted the defendant's factual contention. Outcome: The court imposed a monetary penalty and dismissed the fabricated evidence..
Why does Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd matter for legal AI risk?: Admitting AI fabrication post-filing still costs you money and your evidence — verify before the statement of claim goes out.
What does the public record establish about Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd?: 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 Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd 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.

Mutzarei Hashmal v. Beer Ya'akovAshdod Magistrate Court · Apr 13, 2026same court · fake citations + contract Progressive Northern Insurance Company v. Tony Pete Flores, et al.D. Nevada · Jul 13, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Bailey v. Sedgwick Claims Management Services, Inc.W.D. Tennessee · Jun 8, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Mary McGreevy v. Adam WitkinSC Oregon · Jun 4, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Strategic Funding Source, Inc. v. STI-NY, LLCSC New York · May 28, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)D. Delaware · May 27, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Admitting AI fabrication post-filing still costs you money and your evidence — verify before the statement of claim goes out.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd?

Why does Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd matter for legal AI risk?

Admitting AI fabrication post-filing still costs you money and your evidence — verify before the statement of claim goes out.

What does the public record establish about Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd?

Which source supports this Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd 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.