Which source supports this Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc. 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.

HomeCasesTijerino v. Spotify USA Inc.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 75/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc.

S.D. New York · Sep 29, 2026

NY / federal Editorial impact: low pro se fake citations ip trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Tijerino cited a case that the court found did not exist and appeared fabricated. The matter is recorded in S.D. New York on 2026-09-29 and concerns pro se and fake citations. The tracked outcome is the procedural response described in the linked source; consult the linked source for the complete record.

Why the court cared: The structured public record identifies pro se and fake citations and records a recorded judicial or procedural response. The linked source controls the precise reasoning and procedural context.
Why it matters now: This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in S.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Operational lesson

This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in S.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

New YorkSingle-state evidence scope

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

CourtS.D. New York

Jurisdictionfederal

Circuit2nd Circuit

DateSep 29, 2026

AI toolLex

Party typePro Se Litigant

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

reported

Lex is recorded in the source dataset; confirm the basis in the linked document.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Tijerino cited a case that the court found did not exist and appeared fabricated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Tijerino cited a case that the court found did not exist and appeared fabricated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Tijerino cited a case that the court found did not exist and appeared fabricated.
Fabricated: Case Law | Tijerino cited a case that the court found did not exist and appeared fabricated.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc.?: Fabricated: Case Law | Tijerino cited a case that the court found did not exist and appeared fabricated. The matter is recorded in S.D. New York on 2026-09-29 and concerns pro se and fake citations. The tracked outcome is the procedural response described in the linked source; consult the linked source for the complete record.
Why does Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc. matter for legal AI risk?: This matter connects pro se and fake citations with a recorded judicial or procedural response in S.D. New York. It provides a source-linked baseline for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc.?: 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 Tijerino v. Spotify USA Inc. 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.

Sexton v. Department of Homeless Services, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 30, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Lawand Hill v. Foundation Media LLCS.D. New York · Sep 22, 2026same court · pro se + ip Philippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Ashmeade v. Amazon.com Services LLCS.D. New York · Aug 27, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Fernando Justino Santana v. Shook Hardy & Bacon, et al.S.D. New York · Jul 31, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations Jason Wimberly v. Verizon New York Inc.S.D. New York · Jun 12, 2026same court · pro se + fake citations

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

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

Corpus snapshot checked Oct 2, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Oct 2, 2026; latest tracked decision Oct 1, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open S.D. New York 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