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 95/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Reclamação (RCL) 78.890 / BA
Supremo Tribunal Federal · May 12, 2025
BrazilEditorial impact: highfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityadministrative
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited ARE 1.218.084 AgR as a controlling precedent; the Court was unable to locate the decision invoked, treating it as a fabricated citation. Outcome: Reclamação found manifestly unfounded; bad faith and monetary sanction (double court costs); OAB and OAB/BA to be notified. The STF relator found that the petition relied on decisions that could not be located and contained false statements about the content of Súmula Vinculante n.º 6 and other precedents. The petition bore a 'Criado com MobiOffice' watermark and the relator concluded the author likely used an AI writing assistant without review.…
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Reclamação found manifestly unfounded; bad faith and monetary sanction (double court costs); OAB and OAB/BA to be notified; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- AI watermarks on filings are red flags—review every output before submission or face OAB referral and doubled costs.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited ARE 1.218.084 AgR as a controlling precedent; the Court was unable to locate the decision invoked, treating it as a fabricated citation. Outcome: Reclamação found manifestly unfounded; bad faith and monetary sanction (double court costs); OAB and OAB/BA to be notified. The STF relator found that the petition relied on decisions that could not be located and contained false statements about the content of Súmula Vinculante n.º 6 and other precedents. The petition bore a 'Criado com MobiOffice' watermark and the relator concluded the author likely used an AI writing assistant without review. The complaint was denied, bad faith was declared and procedural costs were doubled; OAB was notified.
Operational lesson
AI watermarks on filings are red flags—review every output before submission or face OAB referral and doubled costs.
Record details
CourtSupremo Tribunal Federal
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 12, 2025
MO
AI toolMobiOffice
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeReclamação found manifestly unfounded; bad faith and monetary sanction (double court costs); OAB and OAB/BA to be notified
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionYes
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
reported
MobiOffice is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.
Procedural posture
Reclamação found manifestly unfounded; bad faith and monetary sanction (double court costs); OAB and OAB/BA to be notified
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
5 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited ARE 1.218.084 AgR as a controlling precedent; the Court was unable to locate the decision invoked, treating it as a fabricated citation.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petition invoked RE 464.867/SP as a binding precedent; the relator states the decision mentioned was not located and the invocation is misleading/non-existent.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petition invoked RE 328.111/DF as precedent; the relator reports the decision could not be located as cited by the petitioner.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Petition attributed to Súmula Vinculante nº 6 the wording that penal acquittal for nonexistence of the fact prevents an administrative sanction; the Court found that the petition's quoted wording is false and provided the actual text of SV6, which concerns military remuneration.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Petition mischaracterized RE 226.855/RS as supporting the claimed rule; the Court notes that RE 226.855/RS actually dealt with FGTS correction (Bresser/Verão/Collor plans), not the effects of penal acquittal asserted by the petitioner.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Reclamação (RCL) 78.890 / BA?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited ARE 1.218.084 AgR as a controlling precedent; the Court was unable to locate the decision invoked, treating it as a fabricated citation. Outcome: Reclamação found manifestly unfounded; bad faith and monetary sanction (double court costs); OAB and OAB/BA to be notified. The STF relator found that the petition relied on decisions that could not be located and contained false statements about the content of Súmula Vinculante n.º 6 and other precedents. The petition bore a 'Criado com MobiOffice' watermark and the relator concluded the author likely used an AI writing assistant without review.…
- Why does Reclamação (RCL) 78.890 / BA matter for legal AI risk?
- AI watermarks on filings are red flags—review every output before submission or face OAB referral and doubled costs.
- What does the public record establish about Reclamação (RCL) 78.890 / BA?
- 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 Reclamação (RCL) 78.890 / BA 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.