ООО «Точка опоры» v. ООО «ЦСС»
West Siberian District AC · May 14, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- West Siberian District AC
- Record ID
- v-2026-05-14
- Observed outcome
- The court imposed a judicial fine of 50,000 RUB on the defendant for contempt of court.
- Known monetary consequence
- RUB 50,000
Why this matter warrants attention
The West Siberian District Arbitrazh Court imposed a 50,000 RUB fine on ООО «ЦСС» for submitting a cassation complaint containing fabricated judicial precedents and false quotations. The court ruled that the party is responsible for the accuracy of its filings, regardless of whether AI tools were used in their preparation.
The court reasoned that the party is responsible for the accuracy of its filings under the principle of good faith, regardless of whether AI tools were used. The court found that the submission of non-existent judicial acts and false quotations constituted a deliberate attempt to deceive the court and a gross manifestation of disrespect, warranting a fine under Article 119 of the Arbitrazh Procedural Code.
This case establishes that parties are strictly liable for the accuracy of their legal filings, even when AI tools are used. It confirms that courts will impose monetary sanctions for the submission of fabricated precedents, treating such conduct as a breach of the duty of good faith.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fake Citations
- Misrepresented Authority
- Contract
- Trial
- Monetary
- AI attribution
- Implied
- Recorded tool
- AI (implied, unspecified)
- Known monetary consequence
- RUB 50,000
- Procedural posture
- Cassation proceeding regarding a motion for a judicial fine for contempt of court.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The court mentions the preparation of the complaint using AI technologies.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Verify the existence, citation, court, and precedential status of every authority before filing.
- Confirm that each authority supports the stated proposition and has not been mischaracterized.
- Escalate unresolved verification failures before filing and preserve the responsible reviewer's signoff record.
- Apply the same source-checking controls to AI (implied, unspecified) output as to any other research input.