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 80/100. It passed the source, context, and standalone-summary checks used for public indexing; individual legal editorial review is not represented.
Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar
S.D. New York · Nov 24, 2025
NY / federalEditorial impact: lowpro sefake citationsmisrepresented authorityemployment
Direct answer
What happened in this matter?
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Connel v. ByteDance, Inc., No. 24-1886 (2d Cir. Jul. 15, 2025)' but the docket number pointed to a different case and the Northern District of California case with that caption did not support plaintiff's claimed holding; Court concluded the citation was incorrect/nonexistent.
- Why the court cared
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Connel v. ByteDance, Inc., No. 24-1886 (2d Cir. Jul. 15, 2025)' but the docket number pointed to a different case and the Northern District of California case with that caption did not support plaintiff's claimed holding; Court concluded the citation was incorrect/nonexistent. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Multiple briefed authorities either could not be located, were cited with the wrong reporters, or their substance differed materially from plaintiff's characterization. || Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff misrepresented basic docket facts and filings (e.g., claimed defendants delayed raising arbitration and waited months), which the Court found contradicted the record.
- Why it matters now
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Why this matter is tracked
Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Connel v. ByteDance, Inc., No. 24-1886 (2d Cir. Jul. 15, 2025)' but the docket number pointed to a different case and the Northern District of California case with that caption did not support plaintiff's claimed holding; Court concluded the citation was incorrect/nonexistent.
Operational lesson
This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Record details
New YorkSingle-state evidence scope
CourtS.D. New York
Jurisdictionfederal
Circuit2nd Circuit
DateNov 24, 2025
AI
AI toolAI (implied, unspecified)
Party typePro Se Litigant
OutcomeSee source
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
Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
Correction behavior
Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.
Tracked discrepancy record
3 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Connel v. ByteDance, Inc., No. 24-1886 (2d Cir. Jul. 15, 2025)' but the docket number pointed to a different case and the Northern District of California case with that caption did not support plaintiff's claimed holding; Court concluded the citation was incorrect/nonexistent.
- Misrepresented: Case Law | Multiple briefed authorities either could not be located, were cited with the wrong reporters, or their substance differed materially from plaintiff's characterization.
- Misrepresented: Exhibits & Submissions | Plaintiff misrepresented basic docket facts and filings (e.g., claimed defendants delayed raising arbitration and waited months), which the Court found contradicted the record.
Questions this record answers
- What happened in Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar?
- Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff cited 'Connel v. ByteDance, Inc., No. 24-1886 (2d Cir. Jul. 15, 2025)' but the docket number pointed to a different case and the Northern District of California case with that caption did not support plaintiff's claimed holding; Court concluded the citation was incorrect/nonexistent.
- Why does Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar matter for legal AI risk?
- This record documents a Pro Se Litigant filing issue in S.D. New York, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
- What does the public record establish about Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar?
- 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 Yakov Magdalasov v. ByteDance Inc., TikTok Inc., and Maria Malvar 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.