AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 26, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 23, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesN° 2509827
Evidence review: source unavailable. The linked source could not be retrieved during the latest evidence pass. This page preserves the structured corpus baseline and states the gap explicitly.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.
Corpus matter record

N° 2509827

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); linked document: justice.pappers.fr. What AI Vortex adds.

TA Grenoble · Dec 3, 2025

FranceEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationstrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

In TA Grenoble No. 2509827, a person challenged a EUR 500 administrative fine imposed by the mayor of Saint-Cergues. The tribunal found the filing unclear because it had apparently been drafted with generative AI and identified fantasy judicial references in the argument. It rejected the application after the claimant failed to produce the challenged decision and the remaining grounds were manifestly unsupported.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law
Why it matters now
French administrative tribunals are now documenting AI fabrications in pro-se filings; precedent is spreading across civil-law jurisdictions.

Why this matter is tracked

In TA Grenoble No. 2509827, a person challenged a EUR 500 administrative fine imposed by the mayor of Saint-Cergues. The tribunal found the filing unclear because it had apparently been drafted with generative AI and identified fantasy judicial references in the argument. It rejected the application after the claimant failed to produce the challenged decision and the remaining grounds were manifestly unsupported.

Operational lesson

French administrative tribunals are now documenting AI fabrications in pro-se filings; precedent is spreading across civil-law jurisdictions.

Record details

CourtTA Grenoble
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateDec 3, 2025
NO
AI toolNo tool named in source
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

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

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law

Questions this record answers

What happened in N° 2509827?
In TA Grenoble No. 2509827, a person challenged a EUR 500 administrative fine imposed by the mayor of Saint-Cergues. The tribunal found the filing unclear because it had apparently been drafted with generative AI and identified fantasy judicial references in the argument. It rejected the application after the claimant failed to produce the challenged decision and the remaining grounds were manifestly unsupported.
Why does N° 2509827 matter for legal AI risk?
French administrative tribunals are now documenting AI fabrications in pro-se filings; precedent is spreading across civil-law jurisdictions.
What does the public record establish about N° 2509827?
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 N° 2509827 summary?
The recorded source is justice.pappers.fr. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; 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.

M. D... A. c. Département de l'IsèreTA Grenoble · Jun 4, 2026same court · pro se + fake citationsCase n° 2512468TA Grenoble · Dec 9, 2025same court · pro se + trialPaananen v. Peckham, Inc.W.D. Michigan · Oct 23, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceMoore v. Jackson Walker LLP, et al.S.D. Texas · Oct 21, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceWeyland v. Second Judicial District Court, et al.D. Nevada · Oct 20, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in sourceHadarou Sare v. Central Collection Unit, et al.AC Maryland · Oct 16, 2026pro se + fake citations · same recorded tool: No tool named in source

This record involves a self-represented party. See all pro se litigant AI hallucination decisions in the corpus, with counts by year, country and outcome.

Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.