Wright Brothers Aero, Inc. B-423326.2
GAO · Jul 7, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- federal
- Court
- GAO
- Record ID
- wright-brothers-aero-inc-b-4233262-2025-07-07
- Observed outcome
- The protest was dismissed as untimely, and the protester received a formal warning regarding the submission of AI-generated, non-existent legal authority.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The GAO issued a formal warning to the protester after it admitted to citing a non-existent case generated by AI software. The GAO dismissed the underlying protest as untimely and cautioned that future submissions of non-existent authority could lead to the imposition of sanctions.
The GAO reasoned that the protester's reliance on AI-generated citations without verification wastes the time of all parties and the tribunal. It noted that while it has the inherent right to impose sanctions for actions undermining the integrity of the process, it opted to issue a warning rather than sanctions because the protest was already being dismissed on other procedural grounds (untimeliness).
This case highlights the risks of using AI tools for legal research and drafting without human verification. It serves as a clear notice that tribunals expect counsel and pro se litigants to verify the existence and accuracy of all cited authorities.
Failure modes and consequences
- Pro Se
- Fake Citations
- Published Opinion
- Trial
- Warning
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The GAO dismissed the protest as untimely and issued a warning regarding the use of AI-generated citations.
gao.gov
Official court or government source. The recorded link is hosted by a court or government domain.
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
Protester admitted to using AI-based software.
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded link is hosted by a court or government source. 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
- Implement mandatory verification protocols for all legal citations generated by or with the assistance of AI tools.
- Conduct independent verification of case law existence and accuracy before including citations in any formal filing.
- Review internal policies regarding the use of generative AI in legal drafting to ensure compliance with tribunal expectations for accuracy.