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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Nº 0600814-85.2022.6.00.0000
Tribunal Superior Eleitoral · Apr 14, 2023
BrazilEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Petitioner submitted a 'fábula' produced in collaboration with ChatGPT as the substance of an amicus curiae filing; Court found it inappropriate, removed it from the record and treated the submission as evidence of bad-faith litigation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Petitioner (an attorney) filed an amicus request accompanied by a 'fábula' co-written with ChatGPT. TSE held that amicus filings are inapplicable in electoral proceedings (Res.-TSE nº 23.478/2016), found the submission to evidence bad-faith litigation and manifestly unfounded intervention, ordered desentranhamento of the petition and imposed a monetary fine for litigância de má-fé.
- 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
- Brazilian electoral court fined an attorney for bad-faith ChatGPT submissions - novelty is no defense when the filing is manifestly unfounded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Petitioner submitted a 'fábula' produced in collaboration with ChatGPT as the substance of an amicus curiae filing; Court found it inappropriate, removed it from the record and treated the submission as evidence of bad-faith litigation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Petitioner (an attorney) filed an amicus request accompanied by a 'fábula' co-written with ChatGPT. TSE held that amicus filings are inapplicable in electoral proceedings (Res.-TSE nº 23.478/2016), found the submission to evidence bad-faith litigation and manifestly unfounded intervention, ordered desentranhamento of the petition and imposed a monetary fine for litigância de má-fé.
Operational lesson
Brazilian electoral court fined an attorney for bad-faith ChatGPT submissions - novelty is no defense when the filing is manifestly unfounded.
Record details
CourtTribunal Superior Eleitoral
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateApr 14, 2023
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Sanction
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
ChatGPT 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: Exhibits & Submissions | Petitioner submitted a 'fábula' produced in collaboration with ChatGPT as the substance of an amicus curiae filing; Court found it inappropriate, removed it from the record and treated the submission as evidence of bad-faith litigation.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Nº 0600814-85.2022.6.00.0000?
- Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Petitioner submitted a 'fábula' produced in collaboration with ChatGPT as the substance of an amicus curiae filing; Court found it inappropriate, removed it from the record and treated the submission as evidence of bad-faith litigation. Outcome: Monetary Sanction. Petitioner (an attorney) filed an amicus request accompanied by a 'fábula' co-written with ChatGPT. TSE held that amicus filings are inapplicable in electoral proceedings (Res.-TSE nº 23.478/2016), found the submission to evidence bad-faith litigation and manifestly unfounded intervention, ordered desentranhamento of the petition and imposed a monetary fine for litigância de má-fé.
- Why does Nº 0600814-85.2022.6.00.0000 matter for legal AI risk?
- Brazilian electoral court fined an attorney for bad-faith ChatGPT submissions - novelty is no defense when the filing is manifestly unfounded.
- What does the public record establish about Nº 0600814-85.2022.6.00.0000?
- 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 Nº 0600814-85.2022.6.00.0000 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.