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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Minjie Zheng v. ICANN
C.D. California · Dec 23, 2025
CA / federalEditorial impact: highpro sefake citationsfabricated quotescontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited dozens of cases the Court was unable to locate, including some falsely attributed to this Court; Court identified earlier inability to locate two such cases. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. The Court found plaintiff repeatedly cited cases that could not be located and attributed false quotations to existing cases and statutes, concluding many citations were AI-generated; awarded reduced fees under §1927 given pro se status.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited dozens of cases the Court was unable to locate, including some falsely attributed to this Court; Court identified earlier inability to locate two such cases. || False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed language to Richter v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc. and Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co. that does not appear in those opinions. || False Quotes: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted language purportedly from California Code of Civil Procedure § 356 that bears no similarity to the actual statute. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition to the fee motion cited authorities that were entirely fabricated or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. California, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited dozens of cases the Court was unable to locate, including some falsely attributed to this Court; Court identified earlier inability to locate two such cases. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. The Court found plaintiff repeatedly cited cases that could not be located and attributed false quotations to existing cases and statutes, concluding many citations were AI-generated; awarded reduced fees under §1927 given pro se status.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. California, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtC.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateDec 23, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeMonetary Sanction
Known amount$66,129
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Monetary Sanction
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
4 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited dozens of cases the Court was unable to locate, including some falsely attributed to this Court; Court identified earlier inability to locate two such cases.
- False Quotes: Case Law | Plaintiff attributed language to Richter v. CC-Palo Alto, Inc. and Carlson v. Coca-Cola Co. that does not appear in those opinions.
- False Quotes: Legal Norm | Plaintiff quoted language purportedly from California Code of Civil Procedure § 356 that bears no similarity to the actual statute.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's opposition to the fee motion cited authorities that were entirely fabricated or did not support the propositions for which they were cited.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Minjie Zheng v. ICANN?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited dozens of cases the Court was unable to locate, including some falsely attributed to this Court; Court identified earlier inability to locate two such cases. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. The Court found plaintiff repeatedly cited cases that could not be located and attributed false quotations to existing cases and statutes, concluding many citations were AI-generated; awarded reduced fees under §1927 given pro se status.
- Why does Minjie Zheng v. ICANN matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in C.D. California, with the listed outcome: Monetary Sanction.
- What does the public record establish about Minjie Zheng v. ICANN?
- 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 Minjie Zheng v. ICANN 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.