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 85/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
ООО «Точка опоры» v. ООО «ЦСС»
West Siberian District AC · May 14, 2026
Russian FederationEditorial impact: highfake citationsmisrepresented authoritycontracttrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Cassation cited a Presidium VAS R.F. ruling that the court found does not exist in public databases. Outcome: Monetary Fine. The cassation complaint cited multiple judicial acts that the court could not locate or that did not contain the quoted passages; the representative admitted the cited practice did not exist. The court found this to be deliberate fabrication/misrepresentation and imposed a judicial fine of 50,000 RUB on ООО «ЦСС».
- Why the court cared
- The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Monetary Fine; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
- Why it matters now
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Fine in West Siberian District AC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Cassation cited a Presidium VAS R.F. ruling that the court found does not exist in public databases. Outcome: Monetary Fine. The cassation complaint cited multiple judicial acts that the court could not locate or that did not contain the quoted passages; the representative admitted the cited practice did not exist. The court found this to be deliberate fabrication/misrepresentation and imposed a judicial fine of 50,000 RUB on ООО «ЦСС».
Operational lesson
This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Fine in West Siberian District AC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
Record details
CourtWest Siberian District AC
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateMay 14, 2026
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeMonetary Fine
Known amount$50,000
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
Monetary Fine
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 | Cassation cited a Presidium VAS R.F. ruling that the court found does not exist in public databases.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cassation cited a Supreme Court decision (12.12.2018) that the court could not locate and determined does not exist as cited.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cassation cited a ruling of the Arbitrazh Court of the North-Western District (11.03.2021) which the court did not find in the databases.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cassation cited a Moscow District decision by number/date that either does not exist as given or corresponds to a different, irrelevant case (misstated reference).
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cassation referenced an appellate posting purportedly supporting the position; the database contained only an operative part or an unrelated decision, not the cited appellate ruling.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in ООО «Точка опоры» v. ООО «ЦСС»?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Cassation cited a Presidium VAS R.F. ruling that the court found does not exist in public databases. Outcome: Monetary Fine. The cassation complaint cited multiple judicial acts that the court could not locate or that did not contain the quoted passages; the representative admitted the cited practice did not exist. The court found this to be deliberate fabrication/misrepresentation and imposed a judicial fine of 50,000 RUB on ООО «ЦСС».
- Why does ООО «Точка опоры» v. ООО «ЦСС» matter for legal AI risk?
- This matter connects fake citations and misrepresented authority involving AI (implied, unspecified) with Monetary Fine in West Siberian District AC, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
- What does the public record establish about ООО «Точка опоры» v. ООО «ЦСС»?
- 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 ООО «Точка опоры» v. ООО «ЦСС» 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.