Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Sanctions — Week of 2026-04-13

19 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2026-04-13 and 2026-04-19 (ISO week 2026-W16). 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
19
With monetary penalty
1 of 19
Courts
10
ISO week
2026-W16

Week over week: 19 sanctions filed the week of 2026-04-13 vs 26 sanctions the prior week (2026-04-06) — down 7 from the prior week.

Outcomes this week

  • Warning7
  • Admonishment1
  • Brief Struck1
  • Dismissed1
  • Firm Apologised1
  • Monetary Sanction1
  • Order To Show Cause1
  • Ordered Applicant To Provide Digital Copies Of All Case Law They Intend To Rely On1

AI tool implicated

  • Implied11
  • Unidentified7
  • Centient AI1

This week’s read-across

19 rulings landed on the docket between 2026-04-13 and 2026-04-19. The most common recorded outcome this week was Warning (7 of 19). Of the 19 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.

All rulings, week of 2026-04-13

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks

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.

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