Updated October 20, 2026 · checked against sources listed below
The primary source is Damien Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases Database, which listed 2,202 cases when we checked it on October 19-20, 2026. Other trackers, including AI Vortex's, import or summarize that database and differ in what they add: search, classification, case pages or commentary. Disclosure: AI Vortex publishes one of them. Counts differ across pages mainly because each was captured on a different date. The database is licensed CC BY 4.0, free to reuse with attribution (damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations).
Comparison table: where to look up AI hallucination cases
| Tracker | What it is | Count and date as stated | Access and license |
|---|---|---|---|
| Charlotin: AI Hallucination Cases Database | The primary database, maintained by Damien Charlotin; CSV download | 2,202 cases identified so far; last updated 19 October 2026 | Free; CC BY 4.0, attribution required |
| AI Vortex Legal AI Case Intelligence | Imports Charlotin's database and adds search, classification, case pages and exports (we publish it) | More than 1,800 public matters across 42 countries, per our llms.txt; refreshed on a schedule from the upstream import | Free to read; credits Charlotin and the CC BY 4.0 license (see its credit and methodology pages) |
| HAQQ blog write-up | Vendor blog post summarizing Charlotin's database | 2,046 cases as of September 21, 2026, citing Charlotin | Free blog post |
| GC AI blog write-up | Vendor blog post with a table of landmark cases | Roughly 1,490 decisions as of May 2026, citing Charlotin | Free blog post |
| Vaquill blog write-up | Vendor blog post reading Charlotin's tracker from a risk-manager angle | See the post; we did not verify its count | Free blog post |
Our own listing is not an independent count. It is built on Charlotin's data. The sanctions angle for US courts is covered on our AI sanctions tracker page.
Charlotin's AI Hallucination Cases Database: the primary source
Best for: Anyone who needs the original record, the latest count or the raw CSV.
The database tracks court and tribunal decisions where generative AI produced hallucinated content, typically fake citations. Its inclusion rule is narrow: it does not cover mere allegations, only cases where the court has explicitly found or implied that a party relied on hallucinated material, with a stated exception for some decisions where AI use was alleged but not confirmed. It does not track the wider universe of all fake citations (damiencharlotin.com/hallucinations).
As of the page we fetched on October 20, 2026, it reported 2,202 cases identified so far and a last update of 19 October 2026. The page states a CC BY 4.0 license and the citation to use: AI Hallucination Cases Database, Damien Charlotin.
AI Vortex Legal AI Case Intelligence: search and source-linked views
Best for: Lawyers and risk teams who want to filter the corpus by court, judge, tool or consequence and export evidence.
The AI Hallucination Cases Database is by Damien Charlotin (CC BY 4.0). AI Vortex imports it automatically and adds search, normalization, classification, case pages and exports. Those additions are AI Vortex transformations, not classifications attributed to Damien Charlotin, and no endorsement by him is implied. See Legal AI Case Intelligence for the live corpus and the credit and methodology pages.
This is a mirror with added tooling, not an independent collection. If you need the authoritative count, use Charlotin's page.
Vendor blog write-ups: HAQQ, GC AI and Vaquill
Best for: A quick narrative summary at a point in time.
These posts cite Charlotin's database and add commentary or tables. They are snapshots: HAQQ's post states 2,046 cases as of September 21, 2026, and GC AI's states roughly 1,490 decisions as of May 2026. Their counts look different from the live database because they were captured earlier, not because the data differ.
All three are published by vendors with products in adjacent areas. Read them as commentary, and go to the database for current numbers.
How to read the numbers
Best for: Anyone quoting a case count in a memo, article or policy.
Always quote the number with its date and source. A tracker count measures decisions captured in that database under its inclusion rule, not the incidence of AI errors in filings. Allegations, warnings, sanctions and final outcomes are different things, and good trackers keep them separate.
For what courts require when you use AI, see our AI court disclosure map 2026.
How to choose
- Need the original record or the latest count: Charlotin's database.
- Need to filter by court, judge or tool, or export a brief: AI Vortex Legal AI Case Intelligence (and check it against the upstream record).
- Need a narrative summary: a vendor write-up, with its date in mind.
- Quoting a number: state the source, the date and what the database includes.
The bottom line: Charlotin's database is the primary source. Every other tracker on this page, including ours, depends on it. Use the original for counts and the others for tooling or commentary, and always cite the date.
Sources and what we checked
All pages fetched on 2026-10-20. Counts are quoted as each page states them.
- AI Hallucination Cases Database, Damien Charlotin (2,202 cases, last updated 19 October 2026, CC BY 4.0)
- Creative Commons BY 4.0 (license terms)
- HAQQ: AI Hallucination Cases (2,046 cases as of September 21, 2026)
- GC AI: AI Hallucination Legal Cases (roughly 1,490 decisions as of May 2026)
- Vaquill: Charlotin's tracker read like a risk manager (count not verified)
- AI Vortex llms.txt (1.8K+ public matters across 42 countries)
Related decision paths
AI-Assisted Research. This page was researched and written with AI assistance. Prices and product facts were checked against the public sources listed above on 2026-10-20; where a figure could not be verified it is left out. Vendors can request corrections at manuel@aivortex.io.