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.
Nguyen v. Savage Enterprises
E.D. Arkansas · Mar 3, 2025
AR / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationscontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited nonexistent authority in support of her response to the motion to dismiss, leading to Rule 11(b) sanctions. Outcome: Monetary sanction.
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary sanction; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and contract involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary sanction in E.D. Arkansas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited nonexistent authority in support of her response to the motion to dismiss, leading to Rule 11(b) sanctions. Outcome: Monetary sanction.
AI Use
Nguyen did not confirm which AI tool was used but acknowledged that AI “may have contributed.” The court inferred the use of generative AI from the pattern of hallucinated citations and accepted Nguyen’s candid acknowledgment of error, though this did not excuse the Rule 11 violation.
Hallucination Details
Fictitious citations included:Kraft v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 668 F. Supp. 2d 806 (E.D. Ark. 2009)Young v. Johnson & Johnson, 983 F. Supp. 2d 747 (E.D. Ark. 2013)Carpenter v. Auto-West Inc., 553 S.W.3d 480 (Ark. 2018)Miller v. Hall, 360 S.W.2d 704 (Ark. 1962)None of these cases existed in Westlaw or Lexis, and the quotes attributed to them were fabricated.Outcome / SanctionThe court imposed a $1,000 monetary sanction on Counsel for citing non-existent case law in violation of Rule 11(b). It found her conduct unjustified, despite her apology and explanation that AI may have been involved. The court emphasized that citing fake legal authorities is an abuse of the adversary system and warrants sanctions.
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and contract involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary sanction in E.D. Arkansas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
ArkansasSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Arkansas
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit8th Circuit
DateMar 3, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary sanction
Known amount$1,000
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
1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited nonexistent authority in support of her response to the motion to dismiss, leading to Rule 11(b) sanctions.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Nguyen v. Savage Enterprises?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited nonexistent authority in support of her response to the motion to dismiss, leading to Rule 11(b) sanctions. Outcome: Monetary sanction.
- Why does Nguyen v. Savage Enterprises matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and contract involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary sanction in E.D. Arkansas, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Nguyen v. Savage Enterprises?
- 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 Nguyen v. Savage Enterprises 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.