HomeCasesN° 2024002792

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

N° 2024002792

T. com. Castres · Jul 6, 2026

FranceEditorial impact: lowfake citationstrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | SAS MAF cited multiple 'jurisprudences introuvables' to support nullity of signification; the tribunal found these authorities introuvable, likely fictitious and probably generated by AI, and excluded/discounted them.

Why the court cared: The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is the response recorded in the linked source; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now: This matter connects fake citations and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in T. com. Castres, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in T. com. Castres, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

CourtT. com. Castres

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJul 6, 2026

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

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

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

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 | SAS MAF cited multiple 'jurisprudences introuvables' to support nullity of signification; the tribunal found these authorities introuvable, likely fictitious and probably generated by AI, and excluded/discounted them.
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | The written conclusions of the SAS MAF were described in the pleadings as having been generated by artificial intelligence; the tribunal noted the submissions were AI-generated and criticised their reliability.

Questions this record answers

What happened in N° 2024002792?: Fabricated: Case Law | SAS MAF cited multiple 'jurisprudences introuvables' to support nullity of signification; the tribunal found these authorities introuvable, likely fictitious and probably generated by AI, and excluded/discounted them.
Why does N° 2024002792 matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects fake citations and trial involving AI (implied, unspecified) with a recorded judicial response in T. com. Castres, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about N° 2024002792?: 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 N° 2024002792 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.

Abybatou Mbow v. Officer Michael Mackert et al. (2)D. Maryland · Jul 17, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Cames et al. v. Lowe's Home CentersM.D. Florida · Jul 16, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Izzeddin Ahmed Abdulghaffar Daghra v. Steve Hinkley, et al.W.D. Michigan · Jul 16, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Tekway, Inc. v. AT&T Services, Inc.N.D. Illinois · Jul 14, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)M J Molawa and Others v Matjhabeng Local MunicipalityLabour Court (Durban) · Jul 13, 2026fake citations + trial · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

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

Tracked discrepancy record

2 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | The written conclusions of the SAS MAF were described in the pleadings as having been generated by artificial intelligence; the tribunal noted the submissions were AI-generated and criticised their reliability.

Questions this record answers

What happened in N° 2024002792?

Why does N° 2024002792 matter for legal AI risk?

What does the public record establish about N° 2024002792?

Which source supports this N° 2024002792 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.