AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Oct 25, 2026 · Latest decision Oct 21, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesWilliamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)
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 85/100. 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

Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)

Record source: imported from Damien Charlotin’s AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC BY 4.0), which credits Jesse Schaefer; document hosted in his archive: open the upstream document. What AI Vortex adds.

D. Delaware · May 27, 2026

DE / federalEditorial impact: lowfake citationscontracttrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent authority in briefing; the Court flagged the fictitious citation and Plaintiff conceded it likely resulted from AI. Outcome: No AI-specific sanction. The Court identified at least one instance where Plaintiff cited a non-existent authority and informed Plaintiff. Plaintiff conceded the fictitious citation likely resulted from artificial intelligence. The Court excluded any contentions relying on the fabricated authority from its consideration and stated it would consider whether any additional action is required.

Why the court cared
The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is No AI-specific sanction; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now
This matter connects fake citations and contract involving Unidentified with no AI-specific sanction in D. Delaware, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Why this matter is tracked

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent authority in briefing; the Court flagged the fictitious citation and Plaintiff conceded it likely resulted from AI. Outcome: No AI-specific sanction. The Court identified at least one instance where Plaintiff cited a non-existent authority and informed Plaintiff. Plaintiff conceded the fictitious citation likely resulted from artificial intelligence. The Court excluded any contentions relying on the fabricated authority from its consideration and stated it would consider whether any additional action is required.

Operational lesson

This matter connects fake citations and contract involving Unidentified with no AI-specific sanction in D. Delaware, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.

Record details

DelawareSingle-state evidence scope
Explore DEOpen its source-linked jurisdiction page and related matters.
CourtD. Delaware
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit3rd Circuit
DateMay 27, 2026
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeLawyer
OutcomeNo AI-specific sanction: the court set the fabricated authority aside, ruled against the complaint on other grounds and said it would consider whether any other action is necessary; the opinion imposes no sanction and gives no caution
Known amountNot recorded
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

No AI-specific sanction: the court set the fabricated authority aside, ruled against the complaint on other grounds and said it would consider whether any other action is necessary; the opinion imposes no sanction and gives no caution

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 | Plaintiff cited a non-existent authority in briefing; the Court flagged the fictitious citation and Plaintiff conceded it likely resulted from AI.

Questions this record answers

What happened in Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited a non-existent authority in briefing; the Court flagged the fictitious citation and Plaintiff conceded it likely resulted from AI. Outcome: No AI-specific sanction. The Court identified at least one instance where Plaintiff cited a non-existent authority and informed Plaintiff. Plaintiff conceded the fictitious citation likely resulted from artificial intelligence. The Court excluded any contentions relying on the fabricated authority from its consideration and stated it would consider whether any additional action is required.
Why does Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.) matter for legal AI risk?
This matter connects fake citations and contract involving Unidentified with no AI-specific sanction in D. Delaware, making it a concrete reference point for verification, supervision, and response controls.
What does the public record establish about Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, Inc.)?
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 Williamson v. Meyers (derivatively on behalf of Equinix, 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.

In re BittrexD. Delaware · Oct 22, 2025same court · fake citations + trialAnonymized discovery-order recordDelaware Ch. · Dec 18, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + contractDisruptive Resources, LLC v. Ballistic Barrier Products Inc. et al.D. Delaware · Aug 20, 2026same court · trialSWSZ Holding v. SZ GlobalSC Delaware · May 27, 2026same jurisdiction · fake citations + contractDorsey v. JonesDelaware Ch. · Dec 16, 2025same jurisdiction · fake citations + contractApelação Cível nº 1032884-04.2025.8.26.0224TJ San Paulo · Aug 13, 2026fake citations + contract · same recorded tool: Unidentified
Weekly alert

Weekly alert: new AI-hallucination court cases

One short email a week with the newly recorded cases, courts and sanctions. Free, no spam, unsubscribe anytime.