N° 2024002792
T. com. Castres · Jul 6, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- T. com. Castres
- Record ID
- n-2024002792-2026-07-06
- Observed outcome
- The tribunal noted the use of AI-generated, fictitious case law by the defendant and excluded these authorities from the proceedings.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The Tribunal de commerce de Castres encountered legal submissions from SAS MAF containing likely fictitious, AI-generated case law. The tribunal noted these 'jurisprudences introuvables' were unreliable and excluded them from consideration, reflecting a judicial response to the use of unverified AI-generated content in formal legal filings.
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.
This case serves as a clear example of a tribunal identifying and discounting AI-generated, fictitious legal authorities. It underscores the necessity for practitioners to verify all AI-generated research and the risk of judicial scrutiny when fabricated citations are introduced into court filings.
Failure modes and consequences
- Hallucinated_case_law
- Unverified_legal_research
- Fake Citations
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Explicitly Recorded
- Recorded tool
- AI (unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Opposition to an injunction to pay (injonction de payer) heard by the Tribunal de commerce de Castres.
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 judgment refers to the use of 'logiciels d'intelligence artificielle'.
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 legal authorities cited in pleadings, regardless of the research tool used.
- Ensure that all documents and case law cited in submissions are accessible and verifiable by opposing counsel and the court.
- Review internal AI usage policies to ensure that generative tools are not used to create or validate legal citations without human oversight.