HomeCasesRoll Q/25/0025

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.

Corpus matter record

Roll Q/25/0025

Enterprise Court Ghent · Dec 15, 2025

BelgiumEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrial

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 25 november 2021, AR C.20.0193.F'; court verified via Google AI-mode and found the cited cassation decision/rolnummer does not exist and the provided ECLI was incorrect. Outcome: Hearing on possible sanction.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 25 november 2021, AR C.20.0193.F'; court verified via Google AI-mode and found the cited cassation decision/rolnummer does not exist and the provided ECLI was incorrect. || Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 14 juni 2021, P.20.0810.N'; court checked and concluded no such Cassation judgment or ECLI exists — the reference is fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'GwH nr. 104/2017 van 6 juli 2017' as a Constitutional Court decision relevant to equality; court found no such decision at that date/number and that the cited ruling does not support the asserted proposition.
Why it matters now: Courts are using AI-assisted search to detect your AI hallucinations; a dedicated sanctions hearing is now the default response.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Courts are using AI-assisted search to detect your AI hallucinations; a dedicated sanctions hearing is now the default response.

Record details

CourtEnterprise Court Ghent

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateDec 15, 2025

AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeHearing on possible sanction

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

Hearing on possible sanction

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 25 november 2021, AR C.20.0193.F'; court verified via Google AI-mode and found the cited cassation decision/rolnummer does not exist and the provided ECLI was incorrect.
Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 14 juni 2021, P.20.0810.N'; court checked and concluded no such Cassation judgment or ECLI exists — the reference is fabricated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'GwH nr. 104/2017 van 6 juli 2017' as a Constitutional Court decision relevant to equality; court found no such decision at that date/number and that the cited ruling does not support the asserted proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Roll Q/25/0025?: Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 25 november 2021, AR C.20.0193.F'; court verified via Google AI-mode and found the cited cassation decision/rolnummer does not exist and the provided ECLI was incorrect. Outcome: Hearing on possible sanction.
Why does Roll Q/25/0025 matter for legal AI risk?: Courts are using AI-assisted search to detect your AI hallucinations; a dedicated sanctions hearing is now the default response.
What does the public record establish about Roll Q/25/0025?: 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 Roll Q/25/0025 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.

Recurso de Suplicación 0005472/2025T.S.X. Galicia · Jul 7, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)14095863 Canada Inc v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jul 3, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Chilly Moose Ltd. v Moosehead Breweries LimitedTrademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Moosehead Breweries Limited v 14095863 Canada Inc.Trademarks Opposition Board · Jun 29, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)K.W. v. Ringwood Board of EducationD. New Jersey · Jun 16, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Djybril Voukeng Djatsa v. Minister of Citizenship and ImmigrationFederal Court · Jun 4, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

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

Open recorded source

Publication statusevidence baseline passed

Published by AI Vortex · Manu Ayala
Page updated Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Jul 23, 2026; latest tracked decision Jul 21, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Cases from this court

Evidence boundary

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.

Read methodology

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

Courts are using AI-assisted search to detect your AI hallucinations; a dedicated sanctions hearing is now the default response.

Tracked discrepancy record

3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'Cass. 14 juni 2021, P.20.0810.N'; court checked and concluded no such Cassation judgment or ECLI exists — the reference is fabricated.

Fabricated: Case Law | Submission cited 'GwH nr. 104/2017 van 6 juli 2017' as a Constitutional Court decision relevant to equality; court found no such decision at that date/number and that the cited ruling does not support the asserted proposition.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Roll Q/25/0025?

Why does Roll Q/25/0025 matter for legal AI risk?

Courts are using AI-assisted search to detect your AI hallucinations; a dedicated sanctions hearing is now the default response.

What does the public record establish about Roll Q/25/0025?

Which source supports this Roll Q/25/0025 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.