Which source supports this Richard A. Cole v. Midland States Bank, et al. 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.

HomeCasesRichard A. Cole v. Midland States Bank, et al.

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

Richard A. Cole v. Midland States Bank, et al.

D. Massachusetts · Jun 1, 2026

MA / federal Editorial impact: low pro se misrepresented authority contract trial Warning

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court admonished a pro se plaintiff for submitting an AI-generated 'AI Overview' screenshot that contained a material misrepresentation of law regarding EFTA standing. The court ruled the AI output was incorrect and warned the plaintiff against relying on such ill-founded information in future court filings.

Why the court cared: The court reasoned that the plaintiff's reliance on AI output to support a legal position that contradicted the plain language of the EFTA constituted a material misrepresentation, regardless of the plaintiff's pro se status.
Why it matters now: This case illustrates judicial intolerance for the submission of unverified AI-generated legal research, even by pro se litigants. It highlights the court's expectation that parties must independently verify the accuracy of legal propositions before presenting them to the court.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil action involving claims under the Electronic Funds Transfer Act (EFTA), a pro se plaintiff submitted an 'AI Overview' screenshot as legal authority to support his standing as an intended recipient of a failed transfer. The court determined that the plaintiff was not a 'consumer' under the EFTA and that the AI-generated assertion was legally incorrect. The court characterized the submission of this AI output as a material misrepresentation of the law. While the court acknowledged the plaintiff's pro se status, it formally admonished him against making such ill-founded misrepresentations in future filings. The court ultimately granted the defendants' motion to dismiss all counts of the complaint.

Operational lesson

This case illustrates judicial intolerance for the submission of unverified AI-generated legal research, even by pro se litigants. It highlights the court's expectation that parties must independently verify the accuracy of legal propositions before presenting them to the court.

Record details

MassachusettsSingle-state evidence scope

Explore MAOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.

CourtD. Massachusetts

Jurisdictionfederal

CircuitNot recorded

DateJun 1, 2026

AI toolGoogle AI Overview

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeThe court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss and issued a formal admonishment to the plaintiff regarding his use of AI-generated legal authority.

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The plaintiff submitted a screenshot of a Google AI Overview.

Procedural posture

The court issued a Memorandum & Order granting the defendants' motion to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint in its entirety.

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: Legal Norm | Pro se plaintiff submitted an AI-generated 'AI Overview' screenshot asserting that the intended recipient of a failed electronic transfer may file a claim under the EFTA; the court found this claim incorrect and a material misrepresentation.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Richard A. Cole v. Midland States Bank, et al.?: The court admonished a pro se plaintiff for submitting an AI-generated 'AI Overview' screenshot that contained a material misrepresentation of law regarding EFTA standing. The court ruled the AI output was incorrect and warned the plaintiff against relying on such ill-founded information in future court filings.
Why does Richard A. Cole v. Midland States Bank, et al. matter for legal AI risk?: This case illustrates judicial intolerance for the submission of unverified AI-generated legal research, even by pro se litigants. It highlights the court's expectation that parties must independently verify the accuracy of legal propositions before presenting them to the court.
What does the public record establish about Richard A. Cole v. Midland States Bank, et al.?: 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 Richard A. Cole v. Midland States Bank, et al. 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.

In re: MarrettD. Massachusetts · Feb 19, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority Traver v. General Motors Financial Company Inc., et al.D. Massachusetts · Mar 11, 2026same court · pro se + contract Gregory J. Van Etten v. Stephanie K. Fattman, et al.D. Massachusetts · Mar 6, 2026same court · pro se + misrepresented authority In re: Telexfree Securities LitigationD. Massachusetts · Feb 13, 2026same court · misrepresented authority + contract Zherka v. Davey et al.D. Massachusetts · May 22, 2025same court · pro se + trial Souza v. City of FitchburgD. Massachusetts · Mar 30, 2026same court · pro se + trial

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusprimary document verified

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Aug 12, 2026; latest tracked decision Aug 11, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open D. Massachusetts profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology