What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Requête et mémoires citaient des décisions juridictionnelles inexistantes; le tribunal relève qu'il s'agit de décisions non existantes et les rejette comme manifestement infondées. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Les actes comportaient des textes légaux inapplicables et des normes présentées de manière erronée, apparemment générés par l'IA; le tribunal écarte ces arguments.

Details

The tribunal found the applicant's 300+ page filings to be manifestly generated with artificial intelligence, citing inapplicable statutory provisions and judicial decisions that do not exist. The court treated those submissions as manifestly unfounded and abusive and imposed a 200-euro fine under article R.741-12 CJA. The court's reasoning emphasized that the documents contained nonexistent jurisprudence and irrelevant or inapplicable legal texts, warranting rejection and a sanction for abuse of procedure.

Sanction teardown · TA Grenoble, France · 2026-06-04

M. D... A. c. Département de l'Isère

What happened

In TA Grenoble, France, 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)

Requête et mémoires citaient des décisions juridictionnelles inexistantes; le tribunal relève qu'il s'agit de décisions non existantes et les rejette comme manifestement infondées.
Misrepresented (Legal Norm)

Les actes comportaient des textes légaux inapplicables et des normes présentées de manière erronée, apparemment générés par l'IA; le tribunal écarte ces arguments.

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 (monetary penalty: 200 EUR.)

Additional detail

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/2380/DTA_2410230_20260604.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