AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Aug 9, 2026 · Latest decision Aug 6, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesPut A Bird On It, LLC v. Seattle Arena Holdings, LLC
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

Put A Bird On It, LLC v. Seattle Arena Holdings, LLC

CA Washington · Mar 2, 2026

WA / stateEditorial impact: lowfake citationsfabricated quotescontractappellateNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The appellant's counsel submitted an appellate brief containing fabricated case law and erroneous citations generated by AI-based search engines. Counsel admitted to the use of these tools and apologized to the court. The court addressed the merits of the underlying contract dispute while noting the failure of the appellant's research process.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's opening brief included AI-generated erroneous citations and false quotations—mixing fictitious captions, misattributed citations, and legal principles not supported by the cited cases; attorneys admitted the citations were produced by 'AI-based search engines' and apologized to the court.
Why it matters now
Ban consumer AI search engines for appellate briefs; apologies don't erase fabricated captions on the record.

Why this matter is tracked

In an appellate matter before the Washington Court of Appeals, the appellant's opening brief contained AI-generated erroneous citations and fabricated quotations. The brief included fictitious case captions, misattributed citations, and legal principles unsupported by the cited authorities. Upon discovery of these inaccuracies, the appellant's attorneys admitted that the citations were produced using AI-based search engines and issued an apology to the court. The court's opinion, which affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the underlying contract claims, noted the procedural failure regarding the appellant's reliance on these fabricated authorities. The incident highlights the risks associated with using unverified AI tools for legal research and the necessity of rigorous verification of all authorities and quotations before filing.

Operational lesson

Ban consumer AI search engines for appellate briefs; apologies don't erase fabricated captions on the record.

Record details

WashingtonSingle-state evidence scope
Explore WAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtCA Washington
Jurisdictionstate
Circuit9th Circuit
DateMar 2, 2026
AI
AI toolAI-based search engines
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's claims, finding no enforceable contract existed.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

admitted

Attorneys admitted citations were produced by AI-based search engines.

Procedural posture

Appeal of a trial court's CR 12(b)(6) dismissal of breach of contract and related claims, affirmed by the Washington Court of Appeals.

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.

  1. Fabricated: Case Law | Appellant's opening brief included AI-generated erroneous citations and false quotations—mixing fictitious captions, misattributed citations, and legal principles not supported by the cited cases; attorneys admitted the citations were produced by 'AI-based search engines' and apologized to the court.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Put A Bird On It, LLC v. Seattle Arena Holdings, LLC?
The appellant's counsel submitted an appellate brief containing fabricated case law and erroneous citations generated by AI-based search engines. Counsel admitted to the use of these tools and apologized to the court. The court addressed the merits of the underlying contract dispute while noting the failure of the appellant's research process.
Why does Put A Bird On It, LLC v. Seattle Arena Holdings, LLC matter for legal AI risk?
Ban consumer AI search engines for appellate briefs; apologies don't erase fabricated captions on the record.
What does the public record establish about Put A Bird On It, LLC v. Seattle Arena Holdings, LLC?
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 Put A Bird On It, LLC v. Seattle Arena Holdings, LLC 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.

Matthew Merz v. Harlyn Jenkins, Jillane Baros, Melinda Finn‑KamerathCA Washington · Jun 15, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesArthur West v. Lower Duwamish Waterway GroupCA Washington · Apr 20, 2026same court · fake citations + fabricated quotesIn re the Marriage of YoungCA Washington · Jul 9, 2026same court · fake citations + appellateIn the Matter of the Estate of CAROL M. CAREYCA Washington · Mar 3, 2026same court · fake citations + appellateEsterra Commons Venture, LLC dba Verde Esterra Park v. Justin NortonCA Washington (d1) · Mar 16, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + fabricated quotesPatterson v. Nuvision Credit UnionCA California (4d) · Jul 2, 2026fake citations + fabricated quotes · same recorded tool: Unidentified