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 91/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd. et al. (OnlyFans)
C.D. California · Sep 12, 2025
CA / federalEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel acknowledged one fake cite Outcome: Monetary sanction; additional reporting and certification requirements; bar reerral. Order to show cause is here here.
- 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; additional reporting and certification requirements; bar reerral; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- ChatGPT output without verification costs $13K plus a bar referral — ban consumer tools for substantive drafting.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel acknowledged one fake cite Outcome: Monetary sanction; additional reporting and certification requirements; bar reerral. Order to show cause is here here.
Operational lesson
ChatGPT output without verification costs $13K plus a bar referral — ban consumer tools for substantive drafting.
Record details
CaliforniaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtC.D. California
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateSep 12, 2025
CH
AI toolChatGPT
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary sanction; additional reporting and certification requirements; bar reerral
Known amount$13,000
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; additional reporting and certification requirements; bar reerral
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel acknowledged one fake cite
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel acknowledged several authorities being misrepresented
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Counsel acknowledged one mischaracterisation of a court's past order
Questions this record answers
- What happened in N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd. et al. (OnlyFans)?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel acknowledged one fake cite Outcome: Monetary sanction; additional reporting and certification requirements; bar reerral. Order to show cause is here here.
- Why does N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd. et al. (OnlyFans) matter for legal AI risk?
- ChatGPT output without verification costs $13K plus a bar referral — ban consumer tools for substantive drafting.
- What does the public record establish about N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd. et al. (OnlyFans)?
- 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 N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd. et al. (OnlyFans) 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.