Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was No. 25BX02906 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 →

No. 25BX02906

Court
CAA Bordeaux
Jurisdiction
France
Decided
2026-02-26
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
—
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 7 février 2018, n° 409302'; the court states this decision does not exist. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 11 janvier 2007, Association SOS Racisme'; the court states this decision does not exist. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 23 septembre 1987, Ministre du travail c/ Sté Ambulances 2000'; the court notes this decision concerns employment-training contract restrictions and is not relevant to the present matter (misapplied precedent). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 14 novembre 2018, n° 420055'; the court states this decision concerns abusive requests to the administration and is not on point (misapplied precedent). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'TC, 17 juin 2019, n° 4153'; the court observes this decision deals with jurisdictional competence regarding equality before public burdens and is not relevant to the appellant's claim (misapplied precedent). || Misrepresented: Case Law | Counsel cited 'CE, 25 août 2025, Commune de Massat'; the court notes this decision concerns freedom of worship in référé liberté and is not applicable to the case at hand (misapplied precedent).

Sanction teardown · CAA Bordeaux, France · 2026-02-26

No. 25BX02906

What happened

In CAA Bordeaux, 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)
    Counsel cited 'CE, 7 février 2018, n° 409302'; the court states this decision does not exist.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Counsel cited 'CE, 11 janvier 2007, Association SOS Racisme'; the court states this decision does not exist.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Counsel cited 'CE, 23 septembre 1987, Ministre du travail c/ Sté Ambulances 2000'; the court notes this decision concerns employment-training contract restrictions and is not relevant to the present matter (misapplied precedent).
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Counsel cited 'CE, 14 novembre 2018, n° 420055'; the court states this decision concerns abusive requests to the administration and is not on point (misapplied precedent).
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Counsel cited 'TC, 17 juin 2019, n° 4153'; the court observes this decision deals with jurisdictional competence regarding equality before public burdens and is not relevant to the appellant's claim (misapplied precedent).
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Counsel cited 'CE, 25 août 2025, Commune de Massat'; the court notes this decision concerns freedom of worship in référé liberté and is not applicable to the case at hand (misapplied precedent).

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.

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/1577/1772365389985.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1577/1772365389985.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