Reclamação (RCL) 78.890 / BA
Supremo Tribunal Federal · May 12, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Supremo Tribunal Federal
- Record ID
- reclamação-rcl-78890-ba-2025-05-12
- Observed outcome
- Reclamação denied as manifestly unfounded; petitioner sanctioned for bad faith with double court costs; OAB notified.
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
Why this matter warrants attention
The STF dismissed the petition as manifestly unfounded, finding it relied on fabricated case law and misrepresented legal norms. The Court imposed a monetary sanction of double court costs for bad faith and ordered the OAB to be notified, citing the likely use of an unverified AI writing assistant evidenced by a document watermark.
The relator determined the petition was manifestly unfounded because the cited precedents (ARE 1.218.084 AgR, RE 464.867/SP, RE 328.111/DF) could not be located, the text of Súmula Vinculante nº 6 was falsified, and the cited RE 226.855/RS was irrelevant to the petitioner's claims. The Court concluded the petitioner attempted to mislead the judiciary.
AI watermarks on filings are red flags—review every output before submission or face OAB referral and doubled costs.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Fabricated Quotes
- Misrepresented Authority
- Administrative
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- MobiOffice
- Known monetary consequence
- $1
- Procedural posture
- The STF relator issued a summary decision denying the Reclamação as manifestly unfounded, declaring bad faith, and imposing monetary sanctions.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
Petition contained a 'Criado com MobiOffice' watermark.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Compare every quoted passage and pincite directly with the underlying opinion or filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.