Back to case record
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
CASE BRIEF / REVIEW PACKETAV-CB-0VI7H7FGenerated September 11, 2026Evidence checked Sep 10, 2026
TRACKED PUBLIC MATTER

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

CA Washington · Mar 2, 2026

Jurisdiction
state
Court
CA Washington
Record ID
put-a-bird-on-it-llc-v-seattle-arena-holdings-llc-2026-03-02
Observed outcome
The court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the appellant's claims, finding no enforceable contract existed.
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
ADVISOR READOUT

Why this matter warrants attention

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 decision-maker 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.

RECORDED ISSUES

Failure modes and consequences

  • Hallucination
  • Fabricated_citations
  • Fabricated_quotes
  • Fake Citations
  • Fabricated Quotes
  • Contract
AI attribution
Admitted
Recorded tool
AI-based search engines
Known monetary consequence
Not recorded
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.
PRIMARY SOURCE

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open underlying source

A recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.

EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

What this record does—and does not—establish

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

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.

Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).

PRACTICAL REVIEW IMPLICATIONS

Controls suggested by the public record

  1. Verify each cited authority, quotation, and proposition against the underlying source before filing.
  2. Use only approved research and drafting tools for legal work.
  3. Retain a matter-level record of source checks and corrections.