Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Reclamação (RCL) 78.890 / BA 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 →

Reclamação (RCL) 78.890 / BA

Court
Supremo Tribunal Federal
Jurisdiction
Brazil
Decided
2025-05-12
AI tool
MobiOffice
Outcome
Reclamação found manifestly unfounded; bad faith and monetary sanction (double court costs); OAB and OAB/BA to be notified
Monetary penalty
1

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Petition cited ARE 1.218.084 AgR as a controlling precedent; the Court was unable to locate the decision invoked, treating it as a fabricated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petition invoked RE 464.867/SP as a binding precedent; the relator states the decision mentioned was not located and the invocation is misleading/non-existent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Petition invoked RE 328.111/DF as precedent; the relator reports the decision could not be located as cited by the petitioner. || Misrepresented: Legal Norm | Petition attributed to Súmula Vinculante nº 6 the wording that penal acquittal for nonexistence of the fact prevents an administrative sanction; the Court found that the petition's quoted wording is false and provided the actual text of SV6, which concerns military remuneration. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petition mischaracterized RE 226.855/RS as supporting the claimed rule; the Court notes that RE 226.855/RS actually dealt with FGTS correction (Bresser/Verão/Collor plans), not the effects of penal acquittal asserted by the petitioner.

Details

The STF relator found that the petition relied on decisions that could not be located and contained false statements about the content of Súmula Vinculante n.º 6 and other precedents. The petition bore a 'Criado com MobiOffice' watermark and the relator concluded the author likely used an AI writing assistant without review. The complaint was denied, bad faith was declared and procedural costs were doubled; OAB was notified.

Sanction teardown · Supremo Tribunal Federal, Brazil · 2025-05-12

Reclamação (RCL) 78.890 / BA

What happened

In Supremo Tribunal Federal, Brazil, a filing relied on MobiOffice to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Petition cited ARE 1.218.084 AgR as a controlling precedent; the Court was unable to locate the decision invoked, treating it as a fabricated citation.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Petition invoked RE 464.867/SP as a binding precedent; the relator states the decision mentioned was not located and the invocation is misleading/non-existent.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Petition invoked RE 328.111/DF as precedent; the relator reports the decision could not be located as cited by the petitioner.
  • Misrepresented (Legal Norm)
    Petition attributed to Súmula Vinculante nº 6 the wording that penal acquittal for nonexistence of the fact prevents an administrative sanction; the Court found that the petition's quoted wording is false and provided the actual text of SV6, which concerns military remuneration.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Petition mischaracterized RE 226.855/RS as supporting the claimed rule; the Court notes that RE 226.855/RS actually dealt with FGTS correction (Bresser/Verão/Collor plans), not the effects of penal acquittal asserted by the petitioner.

Which AI tool

MobiOffice. 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

Reclamação found manifestly unfounded; bad faith and monetary sanction (double court costs); OAB and OAB/BA to be notified (monetary penalty: 1 .)

Additional detail

The STF relator found that the petition relied on decisions that could not be located and contained false statements about the content of Súmula Vinculante n.º 6 and other precedents. The petition bore a 'Criado com MobiOffice' watermark and the relator concluded the author likely used an AI writing assistant without review. The complaint was denied, bad faith was declared and procedural costs were doubled; OAB was notified.

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/758/8E03AC1BCB6B0B_downloadPeca2.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/758/8E03AC1BCB6B0B_downloadPeca2.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