Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Sanctions — Week of 2025-01-27

5 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2025-01-27 and 2025-02-02 (ISO week 2025-W05). 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
5
With monetary penalty
2 of 5
Courts
5
ISO week
2025-W05

Outcomes this week

  • Monetary Sanction1
  • Plaintiff's Response Was Stricken And Monetary Sanctions Were Imposed.1
  • Referral To Legal Services Commissioner1
  • Warning1

AI tool implicated

  • Implied3
  • ChatGPT1
  • Lexis Nexis's AI1

This week’s read-across

5 rulings landed on the docket between 2025-01-27 and 2025-02-02. The most common recorded outcome this week was Monetary Sanction (1 of 5). Of the 5 rulings, 2 carried an explicit monetary penalty in the ruling text.

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 2025-01-27

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks

← Prev: 2025-W04 (6)Next: 2025-W06 (1) →

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.