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.
Wanyu Zhang v. National Public Radio, Inc.
D. DC · Dec 18, 2025
DC / federalEditorial impact: mediumfake citationsfabricated quotesmisrepresented authorityemployment
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cited a non-existent case as if it were binding authority. Outcome: Brief struck; Adverse Costs Order.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cited a non-existent case as if it were binding authority. || Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cited a non-existent case as if it were binding authority. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Howard Univ. v. Best as supporting elements of fraudulent misrepresentation though that decision did not address such a claim. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Lockhart v. Coastal Int'l Sec., Inc. with a quoted phrase and asserted it supported the wrongful termination theory though Lockhart did not contain the quoted phrasing nor resolve the public policy wrongful termination issue as claimed. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Vega v. Hempstead as recognizing that conditioning employment on immigration barriers can be adverse action, though Vega did not involve immigration issues. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Described Larijani v. Georgetown Univ. as sustaining an IIED claim involving visa/immigration issues though the cited reporter and the actual Larijani decision do not involve such issues. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Bible Way Church for promissory estoppel proposition though no promissory estoppel claim was on appeal in that decision. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Robertson v. District of Columbia as holding that employer conduct must be evaluated in full context to support public policy exceptions, though Robertson did not reach the merits of a wrongful termination public-policy claim as presented. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Myers v. Alutiq as supporting the proposition that employers cannot skirt responsibility for visa-related harm, though Myers did not involve visa or immigration issues. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Rodriguez v. Lab'y Corp. as confirming concealment can support a fraud claim though Rodriguez denied the fraudulent misrepresentation claim and did not hold concealment supported fraud in the manner asserted.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in D. DC, with the listed outcome: Brief struck; Adverse Costs Order.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cited a non-existent case as if it were binding authority. Outcome: Brief struck; Adverse Costs Order.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in D. DC, with the listed outcome: Brief struck; Adverse Costs Order.
Record details
District of ColumbiaSingle-state evidence scope
CourtD. DC
Jurisdictionfederal
CircuitD.C. Circuit
DateDec 18, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeBrief struck; Adverse Costs Order
Known amount$1
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary
What the record establishes about AI use
not established
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
Procedural posture
Brief struck; Adverse Costs Order
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
10 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cited a non-existent case as if it were binding authority.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cited a non-existent case as if it were binding authority.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Howard Univ. v. Best as supporting elements of fraudulent misrepresentation though that decision did not address such a claim.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Lockhart v. Coastal Int'l Sec., Inc. with a quoted phrase and asserted it supported the wrongful termination theory though Lockhart did not contain the quoted phrasing nor resolve the public policy wrongful termination issue as claimed.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Vega v. Hempstead as recognizing that conditioning employment on immigration barriers can be adverse action, though Vega did not involve immigration issues.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Described Larijani v. Georgetown Univ. as sustaining an IIED claim involving visa/immigration issues though the cited reporter and the actual Larijani decision do not involve such issues.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Bible Way Church for promissory estoppel proposition though no promissory estoppel claim was on appeal in that decision.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Robertson v. District of Columbia as holding that employer conduct must be evaluated in full context to support public policy exceptions, though Robertson did not reach the merits of a wrongful termination public-policy claim as presented.
Show 2 additional discrepancies
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Myers v. Alutiq as supporting the proposition that employers cannot skirt responsibility for visa-related harm, though Myers did not involve visa or immigration issues.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Cited Rodriguez v. Lab'y Corp. as confirming concealment can support a fraud claim though Rodriguez denied the fraudulent misrepresentation claim and did not hold concealment supported fraud in the manner asserted.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Wanyu Zhang v. National Public Radio, Inc.?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Opposition brief cited a non-existent case as if it were binding authority. Outcome: Brief struck; Adverse Costs Order.
- Why does Wanyu Zhang v. National Public Radio, Inc. matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in D. DC, with the listed outcome: Brief struck; Adverse Costs Order.
- What does the public record establish about Wanyu Zhang v. National Public Radio, Inc.?
- 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 Wanyu Zhang v. National Public Radio, 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.