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 90/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Wertheimer v. Ryanair DAC
Small Claims Court · Nov 1, 2025
IsraelEditorial impact: lowfake citationsadministrativetrial
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
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.
- 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 (implied, unspecified)
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeCosts denied
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
Costs denied
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.
- Fabricated: Case Law
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Wertheimer v. Ryanair DAC?
- 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.
- 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.