Back to live profile
Preview
AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK INTELLIGENCE
AI TOOL EVIDENCE REPORTAV-ER-1YX7V5TGenerated September 12, 2026Evidence checked Sep 12, 2026
AI TOOL EVIDENCE REPORT

Perplexity

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

Matched records6
Source linked100%
Known amount total$6,000
Recorded rangeJul 7, 2025 Aug 5, 2026
EVIDENCE-BASED ANSWER

What issues and consequences appear in records that identify Perplexity?

AI Vortex currently links 6 source-linked public matters that identify Perplexity. The most frequently recorded issue signals are Fabricated authorities (5), Misrepresented authority (5) and Fabricated or altered quotations (4). Recorded responses and outcomes include No adjudicated consequence recorded (3), Monetary sanction (1) and Order to show cause (1). 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.
OBSERVED ISSUE MIX

What problems appear in these records?

Issue categories can overlap within one matter.
RECORDED RESPONSES

How did courts or authorities respond?

A recorded response does not imply that every matter ended in a sanction.
PARTICIPANT CONTEXT

Who appears in these matters?

MATTER CONTEXT

Which practice areas are represented?

UNDERLYING EVIDENCE

Selected public records behind this report

Showing 6 of 6
Aug 5, 2026Ulish Kerry Terrace Booker, III v. U.S. Bank National AssociationD. ConnecticutGemini Pro; Perplexity; Cetient Legal AI; ChatGPTSource
Jul 7, 2025Coomer v. Lindell/MyPillow, Inc. (1)D. ColoradoCo-Pilot, Westlaw’s AI, Gemini, Grok, Claude, ChatGPT, PerplexitySource
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.