Meital Kasantini v. Hagiva'a Proyectim Handasiim Ltd
Ashdod Magistrate Court · Aug 12, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Ashdod Magistrate Court
- Record ID
- meital-kasantini-v-hagivaa-proyectim-handasiim-ltd-2025-08-12
- Observed outcome
- The court ordered the plaintiff to file an amended statement of claim without the fabricated citations and imposed a 1,000 ILS monetary penalty on the plaintiff's counsel.
- Known monetary consequence
- ₪1,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The Ashdod Magistrate Court ordered the plaintiff to file an amended statement of claim removing all AI-generated fabricated citations and imposed a monetary penalty of 1,000 ILS on the plaintiff's counsel for the negligence involved in submitting unverified AI-generated content.
The court reasoned that while the counsel's failure to verify the citations was negligent, it did not constitute malicious intent. The court balanced the need for sanctioning the error against the procedural burden of striking the entire claim, which would necessitate a new filing and potential duplicate litigation. Consequently, the court ordered the removal of the fabricated content and imposed a monetary penalty to address the negligence.
Admitting AI fabrication post-filing still costs you money and your evidence — verify before the statement of claim goes out.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- Case Dismissed
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- ₪1,000
- Procedural posture
- The court issued a decision on the defendant's motion to strike the statement of claim and for costs following the plaintiff's admission of AI-generated fabricated citations.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court refers to the use of AI software without naming a specific tool.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all case law citations generated by AI tools.
- Ensure that all legal filings are reviewed by qualified counsel to confirm the existence and accuracy of cited precedents.
- Establish internal policies requiring trainees and associates to provide source links for all cited authorities.