HomeCasesPloni v. Wasserman et al.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 86/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Ploni v. Wasserman et al.

Small Claims Court · Jun 1, 2025

IsraelEditorial impact: mediumpro setorttrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Outcome: Monetary Fine. " Directing the Court to nonexistent authorities wastes the Court’s time, a resource meant to serve the public, not be monopolized by a single litigant making baseless arguments. "

Why the court cared: The linked record identifies pro se and tort and records Monetary Fine. This page does not infer judicial reasoning beyond the source.
Why it matters now: Pro-se litigant fined 250 ILS for wasting court time with nonexistent authorities generated by ChatGPT.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se litigant fined 250 ILS for wasting court time with nonexistent authorities generated by ChatGPT.

Record details

CourtSmall Claims Court

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateJun 1, 2025

AI toolChatGPT; Google Search

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeMonetary Fine

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

ChatGPT; Google Search is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Monetary Fine

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ploni v. Wasserman et al.?: Outcome: Monetary Fine. " Directing the Court to nonexistent authorities wastes the Court’s time, a resource meant to serve the public, not be monopolized by a single litigant making baseless arguments. "
Why does Ploni v. Wasserman et al. matter for legal AI risk?: Pro-se litigant fined 250 ILS for wasting court time with nonexistent authorities generated by ChatGPT.
What does the public record establish about Ploni v. Wasserman et al.?: 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 Ploni v. Wasserman et al. 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.

Wertheimer v. Ryanair DACSmall Claims Court · Nov 1, 2025same court · trial Evans v. Robertson (4)E.D. Michigan · Jul 21, 2026pro se + tort Giggs v. Michel (dba Soma MD Advanced Medical Aesthetics)CRT · Jul 16, 2026pro se + tort Branden Driver v. CNA Financial Corporation et al.E.D. Wisconsin · Jun 1, 2026pro se + tort Gully v VargheseSC New York · May 12, 2026pro se + tort Krivaia v. HungerfordB.C. SC · May 5, 2026pro se + tort

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Pro-se litigant fined 250 ILS for wasting court time with nonexistent authorities generated by ChatGPT.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Ploni v. Wasserman et al.?

Why does Ploni v. Wasserman et al. matter for legal AI risk?

Pro-se litigant fined 250 ILS for wasting court time with nonexistent authorities generated by ChatGPT.

What does the public record establish about Ploni v. Wasserman et al.?

Which source supports this Ploni v. Wasserman et al. 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.