AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 12, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 11, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesNo. 25BX02906
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 85/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

No. 25BX02906

CAA Bordeaux · Feb 26, 2026

FranceEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authorityadministrativetrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as manifestly unfounded and issued a formal warning to counsel regarding the submission of fabricated and irrelevant case law citations.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 7 février 2018, n° 409302'; the court states this decision does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 11 janvier 2007, Association SOS Racisme'; the court states this decision does not exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 23 septembre 1987, Ministre du travail c/ Sté Ambulances 2000'; the court notes this decision concerns employment-training contract restrictions and is not relevant to the present matter (misapplied precedent). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 14 novembre 2018, n° 420055'; the court states this decision concerns abusive requests to the administration and is not on point (misapplied precedent). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'TC, 17 juin 2019, n° 4153'; the court observes this decision deals with jurisdictional competence regarding equality before public burdens and is not relevant to the appellant's claim (misapplied precedent). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 25 août 2025, Commune de Massat'; the court notes this decision concerns freedom of worship in référé liberté and is not applicable to the case at hand (misapplied precedent).
Why it matters now
Misapplied precedent is as damaging as fabrication — read every cited case in full before relying on it.

Why this matter is tracked

In No. 25BX02906, the Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal rejected an appeal as manifestly unfounded. The court found the appellant's arguments regarding the legality of an administrative residence assignment order lacked merit. Furthermore, the court explicitly admonished counsel for citing non-existent and irrelevant case law. The court identified two fabricated citations ('CE, 7 février 2018, n° 409302' and 'CE, 11 janvier 2007, Association SOS Racisme') and four misrepresented precedents that were inapplicable to the matter. The court formally invited counsel to verify the accuracy of future legal references to avoid submitting 'hallucinated' or 'confabulated' authorities.

Operational lesson

Misapplied precedent is as damaging as fabrication — read every cited case in full before relying on it.

Record details

CourtCAA Bordeaux
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateFeb 26, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe appeal was rejected as manifestly unfounded; the court issued a formal warning to counsel regarding citation verification.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionFormal judicial warning to counsel regarding the duty to verify cited authorities.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court refers to the risk of 'hallucination' or 'confabulation' in references found by 'any means'.

Procedural posture

Appeal of a judgment from the Administrative Tribunal of Poitiers; the Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as manifestly unfounded via summary order.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 7 février 2018, n° 409302'; the court states this decision does not exist.
  2. Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 11 janvier 2007, Association SOS Racisme'; the court states this decision does not exist.
  3. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 23 septembre 1987, Ministre du travail c/ Sté Ambulances 2000'; the court notes this decision concerns employment-training contract restrictions and is not relevant to the present matter (misapplied precedent).
  4. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 14 novembre 2018, n° 420055'; the court states this decision concerns abusive requests to the administration and is not on point (misapplied precedent).
  5. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'TC, 17 juin 2019, n° 4153'; the court observes this decision deals with jurisdictional competence regarding equality before public burdens and is not relevant to the appellant's claim (misapplied precedent).
  6. Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 25 août 2025, Commune de Massat'; the court notes this decision concerns freedom of worship in référé liberté and is not applicable to the case at hand (misapplied precedent).

Questions this record answers

What happened in No. 25BX02906?
The Bordeaux Administrative Court of Appeal rejected the appeal as manifestly unfounded and issued a formal warning to counsel regarding the submission of fabricated and irrelevant case law citations.
Why does No. 25BX02906 matter for legal AI risk?
Misapplied precedent is as damaging as fabrication — read every cited case in full before relying on it.
What does the public record establish about No. 25BX02906?
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 No. 25BX02906 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.

Perry v. Social Security Administration, CommissionerN.D. Alabama · Aug 3, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)The JAAW Group, LLCGAO · Jul 31, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)K.W. v. Ringwood Board of EducationD. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)