Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Sanctions — Week of 2025-06-23

12 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2025-06-23 and 2025-06-29 (ISO week 2025-W26). 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
12
With monetary penalty
3 of 12
Courts
12
ISO week
2025-W26

Outcomes this week

  • Warning5
  • Monetary Sanction2
  • Admonishment1
  • Litigant Lost On Merits1
  • Motion For Costs Denied1
  • Order To Pay Opposing Counsel's Fees1

AI tool implicated

  • Implied7
  • Athena AI1
  • Claude1
  • Not specified1
  • Unidentified1
  • Visto.Ai1

This week’s read-across

12 rulings landed on the docket between 2025-06-23 and 2025-06-29. The most common recorded outcome this week was Warning (5 of 12). Of the 12 rulings, 3 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 2025-06-23

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks

← Prev: 2025-W25 (8)Next: 2025-W27 (17) →

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.