Judicial & Litigation Database.
Comprehensive tracker of AI-related court rulings, sanctions, and legal precedents across jurisdictions.
| LOC | Date ↓ | Case Title | Summary | AI Tool | Action |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 | 2025-10-28 | TA Besançon (FR) — chatgpt output not a petition | The claimant submitted the results of a ChatGPT search about how to challenge a building-permit refusal. The tribunal held that those ChatGPT results could not be treated as an administrative court petition, but only as guidance on how to file one. Because the... | ChatGPT | View |
 | 2025-10-27 | d. or. (us) — hallucinated citation triggers rule 11 show cause | The court identified that a key authority cited to support an interim fee request was “totally fake” and described as a hallucinated case, with attributes consistent with generative AI output. The court explained that reliance on fake precedent can violate Ru... | ChatGPT (suspected) | View |
 | 2025-10-21 | tar lombardia — ai jurisprudence search; non-pertinent citations; bar referral | The tribunal found that the decisions cited in support of the claimant’s arguments were not pertinent and that the quoted holdings were referable to other jurisprudential contexts. During the hearing, counsel stated that the case-law research had been carried ... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
 | 2025-10-15 | NSS (CZ) — fictitious authority citation; “who or what wrote it” irrelevant | The Supreme Administrative Court identified that a key authority cited in the cassation complaint did not exist as presented. The court stated that it is irrelevant “who or what” drafted the statements; the litigant bears responsibility for the submitted cont... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
 | 2025-10-08 | SAP Alicante (ES) — “AI hallucinations” vs deception; referral to bar | The Provincial Court found the appeal brief relied on multiple judicial decisions that “do not exist” and included incorrect quotes attributed to the Supreme Court and Constitutional Court. The court stated that the episode could reflect “hallucinations” prod... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
 | 2025-10-07 | OGH (AT) — ai-drafted filing rejected for incorrect citations | The Supreme Court rejected a fundamental-rights complaint and criticized the submission for containing numerous incorrect citations and text fragments. Counsel expressly stated that the filing had been produced using artificial intelligence and had not been c... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
| | 2025-10-06 | CA Lyon (FR) — chatgpt analysis rejected as proof | In an application to stay provisional enforcement of a commercial judgment, the applicant alleged that an acceptance/hand-over document was forged. The respondent argued that the applicant’s reliance on an analysis performed using ChatGPT had no probative valu... | ChatGPT | View |
| | 2025-09-23 | trib. latina (lab.) — evidently ai-drafted template claim; article 96 sanctions | The court found the lawsuit to be a low-quality template filing that appeared to be drafted with AI tools, as shown by disordered, abstract, and largely incongruent arguments and citations. It also noted the broader pattern of repetitive template litigation by... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
 | 2025-09-18 | Hof Gent (BE) — possible AI-generated fictitious sources disregarded | The Court of Appeal noted that a party’s submissions included numerous references to decisions that do not exist and incorrect quotations/attributions. The party acknowledged that the cited sources were not checked and stated that “possible use of AI applicat... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |
| | 2025-09-16 | trib. torino (lab.) — ai-supported incoherent citations; article 96 sanctions | The court criticised the claimant’s pleading as prepared with the support of artificial intelligence and as consisting of a mass of abstract, disordered, and largely irrelevant legal and case-law citations. It found that this mode of litigation supported a con... | Unknown / Not Disclo... | View |