Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
AI TOOL EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-19QS90EGenerated September 12, 2026Evidence checked Sep 11, 2026
AI TOOL EVIDENCE REPORT

ChatGPT

A print-ready review packet of the issues, recorded responses, participant context, and source-linked matters currently associated with this profile.

Matched records134
Source linked99.3%
Known amount total$305,229
Recorded rangeApr 14, 2023 Sep 9, 2026
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What issues and consequences appear in records that identify ChatGPT?

AI Vortex currently links 134 source-linked public matters that identify ChatGPT. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (110), Misrepresented authority (55) and Fabricated or altered quotations (44). Recorded responses and outcomes include Monetary sanction (50), No adjudicated consequence recorded (44) and Professional discipline (32). Categories can overlap within the same matter, and these counts describe this public corpus rather than the overall behavior or sanction rate of the tool.

Every distribution below links to the exact matching records. This report does not convert corpus counts into a behavioral prediction.
UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 12 of 134
Sep 9, 2026Beus Gilbert PLLC v. Brigham Young University et al.D. UtahClearBrief, Claude, ChatGPT, and GeminiSource
Aug 18, 2026Joann LeDoux v. Outliers, Inc. (2)W.D. WashingtonClaude and ChatGPTSource
Aug 14, 2026Brankle v. SchmellCA IndianaChatGPTSource
Aug 11, 2026A. P. v. S. K.CA QuébecChatGPTSource
Aug 7, 2026Hack v. Preston et alD. UtahChatGPTSource
Aug 5, 2026Ulish Kerry Terrace Booker, III v. U.S. Bank National AssociationD. ConnecticutGemini Pro; Perplexity; Cetient Legal AI; ChatGPTSource
Aug 4, 2026Barteca Holdings v. TacobarnD. ConnecticutOpen Law; Claude; ChatGPTSource
Open all matching records
EVIDENCE BOUNDARY

Scope, traceability, and limits

This report groups existing structured public-record fields. For judges, the counts describe matters in which that person is recorded as a decision-maker; they do not establish general practices, sanction rates, or future behavior.

The complete docket, later history, local rules, standing orders, and controlling primary materials remain authoritative.