Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was BFF FINANCE IBERIA SAU on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

BFF FINANCE IBERIA SAU v. Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha

Court
Tribunal Supremo
Jurisdiction
Spain
Decided
—
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
—
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Case Law | Passages reproduced in the party's written opposition, presented as quotations from Tribunal Supremo decisions, did not match the texts in the CENDOJ database upon judicial comparison.

Details

The respondent's written opposition included passages quoted as from Tribunal Supremo resolutions. The Court ordered the respondent to identify the cited sentences and their database references, then compared the quoted passages to the full texts in the CENDOJ database and found that the reproduced quotations did not coincide literally or substantially with the actual decisions. The Court therefore treated those citations as misrepresentations/false quotations and did not rely on them; no sanction or monetary penalty was imposed in relation to the misquoting.

Sanction teardown · Tribunal Supremo, Spain · date not published

BFF FINANCE IBERIA SAU v. Junta de Comunidades de Castilla-La Mancha

What happened

In Tribunal Supremo, Spain, 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:

  • False Quotes (Case Law)
    Passages reproduced in the party's written opposition, presented as quotations from Tribunal Supremo decisions, did not match the texts in the CENDOJ database upon judicial comparison.

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.

Additional detail

The respondent's written opposition included passages quoted as from Tribunal Supremo resolutions. The Court ordered the respondent to identify the cited sentences and their database references, then compared the quoted passages to the full texts in the CENDOJ database and found that the reproduced quotations did not coincide literally or substantially with the actual decisions. The Court therefore treated those citations as misrepresentations/false quotations and did not rely on them; no sanction or monetary penalty was imposed in relation to the misquoting.

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: Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template