Sanctions — Week of 2026-06-22

27 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2026-06-22 and 2026-06-28 (ISO week 2026-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: 27
With monetary penalty: 2 of 27
Courts: 18
ISO week: 2026-W26

Week over week: 27 sanctions filed the week of 2026-06-22 vs 20 sanctions the prior week (2026-06-15) — up 7 from the prior week.

Outcomes this week

Warning7
Order To Show Cause3
Admonishment2
Ai Misuse Increasing Adverse Costs Award1
Bar Referral1
Brief Struck1
Monetary Sanction1
Order To Explain1
Recurso Não Conhecido; Multa Por Litigância De Má-fé De 5% Do Valor Da Causa; Ofício À Oab Para Apuração Da Conduta Do Procurador.1

AI tool implicated

Implied21
Unidentified6

This week’s read-across

27 rulings landed on the docket between 2026-06-22 and 2026-06-28. The most common recorded outcome this week was Warning (7 of 27). Of the 27 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.

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks

← Prev: 2026-W25 (20)Next: 2026-W27 (30) →

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 digests Full sanctions database Verify your own brief →

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

Sanctions — Week of 2026-06-22

Week at a glance

Outcomes this week

AI tool implicated

This week’s read-across

All rulings, week of 2026-06-22

Peterkin et al v. McIntyre et al

Ex parte A.I.F.-H. f/k/a A.I.F.

Cavalry SPV I, LLC v. James K. Bernard Jr.

Morgan v. Jones

Jaime Alexander Davidson v. Nayeli Nadir Chang-Warner

Barari v. Burgess

Nady v. Al Sadi, 2026 ONSC 3760

Paris v. Paris

Appellant v. Director, Ontario Disability Support Program

K… A… c. Retraite Québec

Reginald Grant v. Amazon.com Services, L.L.C.

Kim v. Wexel

Jay Folse v. Governor Sproul Associates, A Pennsylvania Limited Partnership

Allahgehovah Jones v. City of Moore, et al.

Xinyue Hippe v. Retention Brands, LLC

Ederaldo Cirino da Luz v. Joaquim Cirino da Luz et al.

Oliver Complot and Corina Tolamaa v. Credit Control, LLC and LVNV Funding LLC

Trina R. Patterson v. Digital Federal Credit Union

Landberg v City of New York

I FZ 104/26 - Postanowienie NSA

Rodney Herod v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc.

Compania General de Combustibles S.A., et al. v. RGR Global Logistics, LLC, et al.

FHMC, LLC et al. v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Arizona, Inc.

Euphoric, LLC et al. v. Westport Community Improvement District, et al. (2)

Adrienne Hankins v. Dentons US LLP, et al.

Zhdanovich-Doty v. Provident Life and Accident Insurance Company

Hoagland Family Limited Partnership v. Town of Clear Lake

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks