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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Rachel Jones v. Experian Information Solutions
E.D. Michigan · Dec 29, 2025
MI / federalEditorial impact: lowpro semisrepresented authoritycontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Great Earth Companies, Inc. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878, 889 (6th Cir. 2002) as supporting the proposition that discovery is required to determine arbitrability; the Court found Great Earth does not address discovery and flagged the misstatement as possibly AI-related. Outcome: Warning.
- Why the court cared
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Great Earth Companies, Inc. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878, 889 (6th Cir. 2002) as supporting the proposition that discovery is required to determine arbitrability; the Court found Great Earth does not address discovery and flagged the misstatement as possibly AI-related.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Why this matter is tracked
Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Great Earth Companies, Inc. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878, 889 (6th Cir. 2002) as supporting the proposition that discovery is required to determine arbitrability; the Court found Great Earth does not address discovery and flagged the misstatement as possibly AI-related. Outcome: Warning.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Warning.
Record details
MichiganSingle-state evidence scope
CourtE.D. Michigan
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit6th Circuit
DateDec 29, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
AI (implied, unspecified) is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Warning
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.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Great Earth Companies, Inc. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878, 889 (6th Cir. 2002) as supporting the proposition that discovery is required to determine arbitrability; the Court found Great Earth does not address discovery and flagged the misstatement as possibly AI-related.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Rachel Jones v. Experian Information Solutions?
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Plaintiff cited Great Earth Companies, Inc. v. Simons, 288 F.3d 878, 889 (6th Cir. 2002) as supporting the proposition that discovery is required to determine arbitrability; the Court found Great Earth does not address discovery and flagged the misstatement as possibly AI-related. Outcome: Warning.
- Why does Rachel Jones v. Experian Information Solutions matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in E.D. Michigan, with the listed outcome: Warning.
- What does the public record establish about Rachel Jones v. Experian Information Solutions?
- 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 Rachel Jones v. Experian Information Solutions 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.