AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesWertheimer v. Ryanair DAC
Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.
Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 90/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.
Corpus matter record

Wertheimer v. Ryanair DAC

Small Claims Court · Nov 1, 2025

IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrialMonetary
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court denied the plaintiff's request for legal costs as a direct sanction for the improper use of AI to generate non-existent case law citations in his pleadings, despite the plaintiff partially succeeding on the merits of his underlying claim for a ticket refund.

Why the court cared
Fabricated: Case Law
Why it matters now
Even a partial win becomes a loss when AI-fabricated citations strip your costs award.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law Outcome: Costs denied. The plaintiff, who is a lawyer , filed a claim for damages against Ryanair and included citations to several judgments to support his arguments. It was discovered that the plaintiff had used artificial intelligence to search for these judgments and/or draft the claim , and the cited cases "do not exist". The judge strongly condemned this conduct, stating it was improper and that the plaintiff's excuse for filing in haste was not acceptable. The non-existent citations were disregarded, and the court explicitly denied the plaintiff an award of costs (despite partially winning the claim) as a direct result of this conduct.

Operational lesson

Even a partial win becomes a loss when AI-fabricated citations strip your costs award.

Record details

CourtSmall Claims Court
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateNov 1, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeThe claim was partially granted regarding ticket refunds and exemplary damages, but the court denied the plaintiff's request for legal costs due to the use of AI-generated fake citations.
Known amount₪0
Professional sanctionThe court issued a formal judicial condemnation of the attorney's conduct in the written judgment.
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

explicitly recorded

The court identified the use of AI for searching and drafting.

Procedural posture

Small claims court judgment following a hearing on a claim for damages due to flight cancellation.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Case Law

Questions this record answers

What happened in Wertheimer v. Ryanair DAC?
The court denied the plaintiff's request for legal costs as a direct sanction for the improper use of AI to generate non-existent case law citations in his pleadings, despite the plaintiff partially succeeding on the merits of his underlying claim for a ticket refund.
Why does Wertheimer v. Ryanair DAC matter for legal AI risk?
Even a partial win becomes a loss when AI-fabricated citations strip your costs award.
What does the public record establish about Wertheimer v. Ryanair DAC?
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 Wertheimer v. Ryanair DAC 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.

Philippeaux v. United States, et al.S.D. New York · Sep 8, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Perry v. Social Security Administration, CommissionerN.D. Alabama · Aug 3, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)The JAAW Group, LLCGAO · Jul 31, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Alexander M. v. Frank BisignanoD. Maine · Jul 28, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Toronto Standard Condominium Corporation No. 2143 v. RobibaroOntario Condominium Authority Tribunal · Jul 28, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)Kilongozi v. Minister for CitizenshipFederal Court · Jul 10, 2026fake citations + administrative · same recorded tool: AI (implied, unspecified)