Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Sanctions — Week of 2025-05-26

10 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2025-05-26 and 2025-06-01 (ISO week 2025-W22). 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
10
With monetary penalty
4 of 10
Courts
9
ISO week
2025-W22

Outcomes this week

  • Adverse Costs Order1
  • Ai Use Was Noted By The Lower Court; No Specific Sanction For It1
  • Argument Lost On The Merits In Tentative Ruling1
  • Breach Of Rule 11, But No Monetary Sanction Warranted; Referred Counsel To Lawyers Professional Responsibility Board1
  • Class Action Petition Struck From The Record; Finding That Counsel Was Not Fit To Act In This Case; Monetary Sanctions1
  • Monetary Sanction1
  • Plaintiff’s Application Dismissed; No Costs Imposed; Court Warns Against Future Use Of Generative Ai Without Verification; Subsequent Suspension And Fine1
  • Warning And Directions For Remainder Of Case1

AI tool implicated

  • Implied4
  • Unidentified3
  • ChatGPT2
  • Tachdin.AI1

This week’s read-across

10 rulings landed on the docket between 2025-05-26 and 2025-06-01. The most common recorded outcome this week was Adverse Costs Order (1 of 10). Of the 10 rulings, 4 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 2025-05-26

Ko v. Li

Ontario SCJ · Decided 2025-05-28 · Plaintiff’s application dismissed; no costs imposed; court warns against future use of generative AI without verification; subsequent suspension and fine · Penalty: 10000 CAD · AI tool: ChatGPT.

Read the full teardown →

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks

← Prev: 2025-W21 (5)Next: 2025-W23 (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.