What was hallucinated

False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief attributed to In re Deepwater Horizon a quotation the court could not find; Court concluded the quoted language was not present in the opinion. || False Quotes: Case Law | Reply brief attributed to Cooter & Gell a formulation about frivolousness that the court found was not supported by the cited passage. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief cited Edwards v. General Motors Corp. for the proposition that sua sponte sanctions implicate de novo review; court found Edwards does not contain that proposition and the citation was a misrepresentation. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Brief asserted Lewis v. Brown & Root reversed §1927 sanctions where record lacked vexatious intent; court noted Lewis in fact affirmed a §1927 sanction, so the brief misrepresented the case.

Sanction teardown · CA Fifth Circuit, USA · 2026-02-18

Fletcher v. Experian Information Solutions & Bridgecrest Credit Company

What happened

In CA Fifth Circuit, USA, 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)

Reply brief attributed to In re Deepwater Horizon a quotation the court could not find; Court concluded the quoted language was not present in the opinion.
False Quotes (Case Law)

Reply brief attributed to Cooter & Gell a formulation about frivolousness that the court found was not supported by the cited passage.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Brief cited Edwards v. General Motors Corp. for the proposition that sua sponte sanctions implicate de novo review; court found Edwards does not contain that proposition and the citation was a misrepresentation.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Brief asserted Lewis v. Brown & Root reversed §1927 sanctions where record lacked vexatious intent; court noted Lewis in fact affirmed a §1927 sanction, so the brief misrepresented the case.

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

Monetary Sanction (monetary penalty: 2500 .)

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/1539/Fletcher_v._Experian_USA_18_February_2026.pdf, via 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 checker Back 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 — $49 Sanctions-motion template