Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Medical Buyers Group LLC d/b/a Integrity 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 →

Medical Buyers Group LLC d/b/a Integrity v. Candice Pence, et al.

Court
M.D. Georgia
Jurisdiction
USA
Decided
2025-11-18
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Cost Order and Public Admonishment
Monetary penalty
10000 USD

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Integrity cited Truist Bank v. Buerge, 2022 WL 17541757, at *6 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2022); court conducted independent search and could not locate the opinion; citation remained in Integrity's final amended response. || Fabricated: Case Law | Alleged citation Mission Critical Sols., LLC v. Connolly, 2021 WL 5985016 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2021) appeared in earlier filing but was not in the final amended response; court could not locate the opinion in its searches. || Fabricated: Case Law | Alleged citation 'Bliss, 279 Ga. App. At 807' appeared in earlier briefing and could not be located by the court's searches. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Integrity is alleged to have misrepresented the holding of Encompass Off. Sols., Inc. v. Ingenix, Inc.; the court read Encompass and found Defendants' allegation that the holding was misstated to be credible.

Details

Order to show cause is here. Counsel was eventually ordered to pay 10,000 USD to opposing counsel (see here).

Sanction teardown · M.D. Georgia, USA · 2025-11-18

Medical Buyers Group LLC d/b/a Integrity v. Candice Pence, et al.

What happened

In M.D. Georgia, 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:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Integrity cited Truist Bank v. Buerge, 2022 WL 17541757, at *6 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 8, 2022); court conducted independent search and could not locate the opinion; citation remained in Integrity's final amended response.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Alleged citation Mission Critical Sols., LLC v. Connolly, 2021 WL 5985016 (M.D. Ga. Dec. 16, 2021) appeared in earlier filing but was not in the final amended response; court could not locate the opinion in its searches.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Alleged citation 'Bliss, 279 Ga. App. At 807' appeared in earlier briefing and could not be located by the court's searches.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Integrity is alleged to have misrepresented the holding of Encompass Off. Sols., Inc. v. Ingenix, Inc.; the court read Encompass and found Defendants' allegation that the holding was misstated to be credible.

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

Cost Order and Public Admonishment (monetary penalty: 10000 USD.)

Additional detail

Order to show cause is here. Counsel was eventually ordered to pay 10,000 USD to opposing counsel (see here).

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/1057/Medical_Buyer_Group_v._Pence_USA_18_November_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1057/Medical_Buyer_Group_v._Pence_USA_18_November_2025.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