Skip to main content
Citation Safe
← All teardowns

Compiled by Citation Safe (Digital Empire Holdings LLC) from the court’s published sanction order (decided September 16, 2026). Quotes and case details come from the order itself — check the primary source before relying on them.

Sanction teardown · WSA w Poznaniu, Poland · 2026-09-16

II SAB/Po 175/26

What happened

In WSA w Poznaniu, Poland, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 17 November 2023 under docket number III OSK 2415/22. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 10 May 2022 under docket number III OSK 4983/21. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 24 November 2021 under docket number III OSK 4341/21. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    The claimant cited an alleged NSA judgment dated 27 November 2019 under docket number I OSK 1993/18. The court stated that no judgment was issued on that date or under that docket number.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    The court collectively identified the cited NSA authorities as non-existent and characterized their use as a known case of AI hallucination, referring to NSA order I FZ 104/26 of 23 June 2026 as an example of the phenomenon.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Not specified in source record.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/3224/II_SAB_Po_175_26_-_Wyrok_WSA_w_Poznaniu_z_2026-09-16.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).