Sanctions — Week of 2025-02-17

3 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2025-02-17 and 2025-02-23 (ISO week 2025-W08). 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: 3
With monetary penalty: 1 of 3
Courts: 3
ISO week: 2025-W08

Outcomes this week

Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice; No Formal Ai-related Sanction Imposed, But Dismissal Explicitly Acknowledged Fictitious Citations As Contributing Factor1
Costs Awarded Against Bankrupt1
Petition Dismissed Outright; Warning Re: Costs/discipline.1

AI tool implicated

Implied2
Unidentified1

This week’s read-across

3 rulings landed on the docket between 2025-02-17 and 2025-02-23. The most common recorded outcome this week was Complaint Dismissed With Prejudice; No Formal Ai-related Sanction Imposed, But Dismissal Explicitly Acknowledged Fictitious Citations As Contributing Factor (1 of 3). Of the 3 rulings, 1 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.