MERCADO E AÇOUGUE SÃO LUCAS EIRELI v PLUXEE BENEFICIOS BRASIL S.A. (Agravo Interno nº 0000172-78.2026.8.16.0043)
TJPR - 7ª Câmara Cível · May 15, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited judicial precedents that did not exist (jurisprudência inexistente) and were created by artificial intelligence; court treated these as invented case law and grounds for sanction. Outcome: Apelação não conhecida; multa por litigância de má-fé fixada em 5% sobre o valor atualizado da causa mantida; expedição de ofício à OAB/PR para apuração.. The court found that the appellant used artificial intelligence to produce jurisprudence with content that did not correspond to the real decisions and, in some instances, invented whole precedents. This conduct was held to violate the principle of dialecticity and to impede substantive adversarial review, amounting to litigância de má-fé. The court affirmed the monocratic decision: the appeal was not known and a 5% fine was imposed; the court also ordered referral to the bar association for investigation. The decision notes the party was given opportunity to respond and that the fabricated/misrepresented citations justified non-admission and sanction.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Apelação não conhecida; multa por litigância de má-fé fixada em 5% sobre o valor atualizado da causa mantida; expedição de ofício à OAB/PR para apuração.. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Apelação não conhecida; multa por litigância de má-fé fixada em 5% sobre o valor atualizado da causa mantida; expedição de ofício à OAB/PR para apuração. in TJPR - 7ª Câmara Cível. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited judicial precedents that did not exist (jurisprudência inexistente) and were created by artificial intelligence; court treated these as invented case law and grounds for sanction. Outcome: Apelação não conhecida; multa por litigância de má-fé fixada em 5% sobre o valor atualizado da causa mantida; expedição de ofício à OAB/PR para apuração.. The court found that the appellant used artificial intelligence to produce jurisprudence with content that did not correspond to the real decisions and, in some instances, invented whole precedents. This conduct was held to violate the principle of dialecticity and to impede substantive adversarial review, amounting to litigância de má-fé. The court affirmed the monocratic decision: the appeal was not known and a 5% fine was imposed; the court also ordered referral to the bar association for investigation. The decision notes the party was given opportunity to respond and that the fabricated/misrepresented citations justified non-admission and sanction.
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Apelação não conhecida; multa por litigância de má-fé fixada em 5% sobre o valor atualizado da causa mantida; expedição de ofício à OAB/PR para apuração. in TJPR - 7ª Câmara Cível. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Apelação não conhecida; multa por litigância de má-fé fixada em 5% sobre o valor atualizado da causa mantida; expedição de ofício à OAB/PR para apuração.
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited judicial precedents that did not exist (jurisprudência inexistente) and were created by artificial intelligence; court treated these as invented case law and grounds for sanction.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Appellant attributed non-existent content to real precedents (AI-generated quotes/content inconsistent with the actual holdings), undermining the dialectical principle and prejudicing the adversarial process.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in MERCADO E AÇOUGUE SÃO LUCAS EIRELI v PLUXEE BENEFICIOS BRASIL S.A. (Agravo Interno nº 0000172-78.2026.8.16.0043)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant cited judicial precedents that did not exist (jurisprudência inexistente) and were created by artificial intelligence; court treated these as invented case law and grounds for sanction. Outcome: Apelação não conhecida; multa por litigância de má-fé fixada em 5% sobre o valor atualizado da causa mantida; expedição de ofício à OAB/PR para apuração.. The court found that the appellant used artificial intelligence to produce jurisprudence with content that did not correspond to the real decisions and, in some instances, invented whole precedents. This conduct was held to violate the principle of dialecticity and to impede substantive adversarial review, amounting to litigância de má-fé. The court affirmed the monocratic decision: the appeal was not known and a 5% fine was imposed; the court also ordered referral to the bar association for investigation. The decision notes the party was given opportunity to respond and that the fabricated/misrepresented citations justified non-admission and sanction.
- Why does MERCADO E AÇOUGUE SÃO LUCAS EIRELI v PLUXEE BENEFICIOS BRASIL S.A. (Agravo Interno nº 0000172-78.2026.8.16.0043) matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Apelação não conhecida; multa por litigância de má-fé fixada em 5% sobre o valor atualizado da causa mantida; expedição de ofício à OAB/PR para apuração. in TJPR - 7ª Câmara Cível. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about MERCADO E AÇOUGUE SÃO LUCAS EIRELI v PLUXEE BENEFICIOS BRASIL S.A. (Agravo Interno nº 0000172-78.2026.8.16.0043)?
- 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 MERCADO E AÇOUGUE SÃO LUCAS EIRELI v PLUXEE BENEFICIOS BRASIL S.A. (Agravo Interno nº 0000172-78.2026.8.16.0043) 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.