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 81/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Transamerica Life v. Williams
D. Arizona · Sep 6, 2024
AZ / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontract
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
In a District of Arizona interpleader concerning a $100,000 life-insurance death benefit, defendant Tayjalaya Williams filed papers the court said were replete with nonexistent authorities and statutes unrelated to her claims. The order listed four nonexistent cases and noted that cited Arizona statutes did not concern interest on insurance proceeds. The court said the filings suggested possible AI use, such as ChatGPT, but made no finding that Williams used it. It dismissed Transamerica after the stakeholder deposit, denied Williams' summary-judgment and sur-reply motions, and warned that future fake citations could lead to dismissal sanctions.…
- Why the court cared
- The court retained diversity jurisdiction over the interpleader’s second stage and rejected the defective briefing as unhelpful.
- Why it matters now
- It identifies multiple fabricated authorities while carefully framing AI involvement as a possibility, not a finding.
Why this matter is tracked
In a District of Arizona interpleader concerning a $100,000 life-insurance death benefit, defendant Tayjalaya Williams filed papers the court said were replete with nonexistent authorities and statutes unrelated to her claims. The order listed four nonexistent cases and noted that cited Arizona statutes did not concern interest on insurance proceeds. The court said the filings suggested possible AI use, such as ChatGPT, but made no finding that Williams used it. It dismissed Transamerica after the stakeholder deposit, denied Williams' summary-judgment and sur-reply motions, and warned that future fake citations could lead to dismissal sanctions. The cited decision identifies the court, parties, date, and disposition stated here.
Operational lesson
It identifies multiple fabricated authorities while carefully framing AI involvement as a possibility, not a finding.
Record details
ArizonaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. Arizona
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit9th Circuit
DateSep 6, 2024
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeWarning
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
Warning
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 | Court found the cited case does not exist and was used to support Williams’s arguments.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited Tenth Circuit case does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited Fourth Circuit case does not exist.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Court found the cited Ninth Circuit case does not exist.
- Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Court held Williams misapplied these statutes; they concern assignment of payment for services and nonforfeiture options, not insurer interest obligations.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Transamerica Life v. Williams?
- In a District of Arizona interpleader concerning a $100,000 life-insurance death benefit, defendant Tayjalaya Williams filed papers the court said were replete with nonexistent authorities and statutes unrelated to her claims. The order listed four nonexistent cases and noted that cited Arizona statutes did not concern interest on insurance proceeds. The court said the filings suggested possible AI use, such as ChatGPT, but made no finding that Williams used it. It dismissed Transamerica after the stakeholder deposit, denied Williams' summary-judgment and sur-reply motions, and warned that future fake citations could lead to dismissal sanctions.…
- Why does Transamerica Life v. Williams matter for legal AI risk?
- It identifies multiple fabricated authorities while carefully framing AI involvement as a possibility, not a finding.
- What does the public record establish about Transamerica Life v. Williams?
- The court suggested possible ChatGPT use but did not determine that AI generated the filings.
- Which source supports this Transamerica Life v. Williams 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.