Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000
Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0); document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.
TJ San Paulo · Mar 10, 2026
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellate brief cited multiple purportedly binding decisions (attributed to this Relator, to other TJSP panels, STF and STJ) that could not be located and were found to be AI-generated. Outcome: Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The court found that the defense's brief contained jurisprudence that did not exist and that the cited 'decisions' were generated by a generative AI tool (no specific tool named). The court relied on formatting, absence of relator/organ/judge/process numbers, and presence of template placeholders (e.g. "[indicar páginas do interrogatório]") to conclude the pieces were AI-produced. It held this conduct as abusive and constituting litigância de má-fé, applied formal censure and a fine (amount unspecified), and emphasized the duty to verify sources and the inadmissibility of relying on AI-generated, unverifiable jurisprudence.
- Why the court cared
- The structured public record identifies fake citations and misrepresented authority and records Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine in TJ San Paulo. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellate brief cited multiple purportedly binding decisions (attributed to this Relator, to other TJSP panels, STF and STJ) that could not be located and were found to be AI-generated. Outcome: Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The court found that the defense's brief contained jurisprudence that did not exist and that the cited 'decisions' were generated by a generative AI tool (no specific tool named). The court relied on formatting, absence of relator/organ/judge/process numbers, and presence of template placeholders (e.g. "[indicar páginas do interrogatório]") to conclude the pieces were AI-produced. It held this conduct as abusive and constituting litigância de má-fé, applied formal censure and a fine (amount unspecified), and emphasized the duty to verify sources and the inadmissibility of relying on AI-generated, unverifiable jurisprudence.
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine in TJ San Paulo. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
Corrected 2026-11-04: see the corrections log.
Amount read from the primary court record (2026-11-04): open the court record.
TJSP, 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633, 10 Mar 2026: "Multa por litigância de má-fé fixada em 1 salário-mínimo"
What the record establishes about AI use
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine
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 | Appellate brief cited multiple purportedly binding decisions (attributed to this Relator, to other TJSP panels, STF and STJ) that could not be located and were found to be AI-generated.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | The petition itself showed signs of having been produced by a generative AI (retained template text like "[indicar páginas do interrogatório]").
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Appellate brief cited multiple purportedly binding decisions (attributed to this Relator, to other TJSP panels, STF and STJ) that could not be located and were found to be AI-generated. Outcome: Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine. The court found that the defense's brief contained jurisprudence that did not exist and that the cited 'decisions' were generated by a generative AI tool (no specific tool named). The court relied on formatting, absence of relator/organ/judge/process numbers, and presence of template placeholders (e.g. "[indicar páginas do interrogatório]") to conclude the pieces were AI-produced. It held this conduct as abusive and constituting litigância de má-fé, applied formal censure and a fine (amount unspecified), and emphasized the duty to verify sources and the inadmissibility of relying on AI-generated, unverifiable jurisprudence.
- Why does Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000 matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority with Formal Reprimand; Monetary Fine in TJ San Paulo. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about Nº 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000?
- 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 1500026-62.2023.8.26.0633/50000 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.
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.