Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was José Carlos Pinto de Faria 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 →

José Carlos Pinto de Faria v. Prevent TWB do Brasil et al.

Court
TJ San Paulo
Jurisdiction
Brazil
Decided
2025-12-01
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Monetary Fine; Bar Referral
Monetary penalty
1 BRL

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Attorney reproduced an ementa/precedent at fl. 6 that the court could not locate; number was incomplete (marked by repeated 'x'); court concluded it was an AI-generated, nonexistent precedent and not a real decision.

Details

The court found that the agravante (through his counsel) reproduced a 'precedent' ementa that does not correspond to any real judgment and contained an incomplete case number (marked with repeated 'x'), concluding it was likely an AI 'alucinação' (fabricated citation) resulting from misuse of an intelligence‑assistance tool. The majority treated this as litigância de má-fé and imposed a fine of 2% of the updated value of the cause and ordered a copy sent to OAB/SP; a dissenting judge would have excused the attorney for lack of dolo and declined to impose the fine.

Sanction teardown · TJ San Paulo, Brazil · 2025-12-01

José Carlos Pinto de Faria v. Prevent TWB do Brasil et al.

What happened

In TJ San Paulo, Brazil, 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)
    Attorney reproduced an ementa/precedent at fl. 6 that the court could not locate; number was incomplete (marked by repeated 'x'); court concluded it was an AI-generated, nonexistent precedent and not a real decision.

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 Fine; Bar Referral (monetary penalty: 1 BRL.)

Additional detail

The court found that the agravante (through his counsel) reproduced a 'precedent' ementa that does not correspond to any real judgment and contained an incomplete case number (marked with repeated 'x'), concluding it was likely an AI 'alucinação' (fabricated citation) resulting from misuse of an intelligence‑assistance tool. The majority treated this as litigância de má-fé and imposed a fine of 2% of the updated value of the cause and ordered a copy sent to OAB/SP; a dissenting judge would have excused the attorney for lack of dolo and declined to impose the fine.

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/2861/20250001272706.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2861/20250001272706.pdf

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