Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was the sanctioned attorney opposing your firm?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check, $49, no signup. Open Opposition Check →

Get these by email — every new sanction, delivered on the daily 12:00 UTC ingest run.

Free. Full landing page at /sanctions-alert.

Free public database

AI Legal Sanction Case Database

The AI Legal Sanction Case Database is the authoritative, continuously-updated, free index of publicly reported cases where a US or foreign court sanctioned, warned, or issued an order to show cause over AI-hallucinated citations in a legal filing. According to Citation Safe’s public sanctions database, courts have addressed AI-citation problems in 1000 reported cases tracked here as of today, spanning 2023–2026. New cases are ingested daily.

Cases tracked
1,902
Courts covered
396
Cases with a reported penalty
349
USD-denominated penalties
$1,290,986
across 191 USD cases — other currencies not converted

This is the structured dataset: every row here is a live, queryable record — sortable and filterable by jurisdiction, AI tool, judge, and year, with results pulled fresh on every request. Download the full dataset as CSV. For curated write-ups of the highest-profile entries — case background, why each sanction happened, what to take from it — see the AI Hallucination Sanctions Tracker, our editorial companion to this database.

11 cases match these filters · page 1 of 1

CaseCourtJurisdictionJudgeDecidedAI toolOutcomePenaltySource
Senat für Familiensachen, 17 WF 144/25KG BerlinGermany2025-11-20ImpliedNone reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Beschluss 4 L 3030/25KölnGermany2025-11-14ImpliedNone reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
VG Köln, Beschluss vom 14.11.2025 - 4 L 3030/25VG KölnGermany2025-11-14ImpliedEilantrag abgelehnt; Gericht stellte fehlerhafte Zitate fest und wies vorsorglich auf möglichen ungeprüften Einsatz eines KI-Werkzeugs hin, sah jedoch keine Sanktion vor.None reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Case 19 O 527/16LG DarmstadtGermany2025-11-10ImpliedExpert fees reduced to naughtNone reportedSource (rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de)
Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24LG Frankfurt a. M.Germany2025-09-25UnidentifiedNone reportedSource (rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de)
LG Frankfurt, 13. Zivilkammer, 2-13 S 56/24LG Frankfurt (13. Zivilkammer)Germany2025-09-25ImpliedCourt found the cited BGH decisions to be complete fabrications, admonished counsel for relying on or presenting invented authorities; no professional sanction was imposed in this decision.None reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
3 ORbs 164/25KG BerlinGermany2025-08-25ImpliedNone reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
VGH 3 S 1012/25; VG 2 K 1899/25VGH Baden-WürttembergGermany2025-07-08ImpliedNone reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Cologne District Court, 312 F 130/25Cologne District Court (Family Court)Germany2025-07-02ImpliedCourt admonished the attorney and warned that knowingly disseminating untruths may violate BRAO §43a(3)None reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)
Beschluss 5 U 1/25OLG CelleGermany2025-04-29ImpliedCourt treated the cited authorities as Fehlzitate (not verifiable) and did not rely on themNone reportedSource (voris.wolterskluwer-online.de)
OLG Celle, 5 U 1/25OLG CelleGermany2025-04-29ImpliedThe court identified the cited authorities as unverifiable 'Fehlzitate' and declined to rely on them; no professional sanction or monetary penalty was imposed.None reportedCase summary (Charlotin AI Hallucination Cases DB)

This database aggregates publicly reported court sanctions and orders over AI-hallucinated citations. It is informational only, not legal advice, and not a complete record of every such case nationwide — see our free citation checker to verify your own filings before this happens to you.