Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Sanctions — Week of 2025-01-20

6 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2025-01-20 and 2025-01-26 (ISO week 2025-W04). Every ruling below is sourced from the public docket — case name, decided date, outcome, AI tool implicated (when named), and any monetary penalty language pulled verbatim from the ruling.

Week at a glance

Total rulings
6
With monetary penalty
0 of 6
Courts
6
ISO week
2025-W04

Outcomes this week

  • Warning2
  • Fake References Withdrawn Before The Hearing1
  • No Contempt, But Might Bear Out On Costs1

AI tool implicated

  • Implied3
  • Unidentified2
  • ChatGPT1

This week’s read-across

6 rulings landed on the docket between 2025-01-20 and 2025-01-26. The most common recorded outcome this week was Warning (2 of 6). No rulings this week specified a dollar-figure monetary penalty in the docket text — but bar referrals, adverse-costs orders, and case-standing consequences apply regardless.

Implied was the most-implicated AI tool this week (courts rarely require the attorney to name the tool by product name on the record; “Implied” means the ruling described an AI-generated brief without a product name).

The pattern each week is remarkably stable: existence failures (Layer 1) dominate. Attorneys file briefs containing citations that do not exist in any primary source — usually because a general-purpose LLM fabricated the citation and no deterministic pre-filing check caught it. Every ruling below is a preventable filing. See /verify for the pre-filing tool.

All rulings, week of 2025-01-20

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks

← Prev: 2025-W03 (1)Next: 2025-W05 (5) →

Get the Sanctions Alert — a new issue every time a ruling lands.

Free double-opt-in newsletter. Case, sanction, fake cites, lesson. No promotional content.

Subscribe (free) →Verify your own brief
All weekly digestsFull sanctions databaseVerify your own brief →

Informational only. Not legal advice. Data derived from public court records; corrections at /contact.