Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Sanctions — Week of 2026-07-13

33 AI-hallucination sanctions decided between 2026-07-13 and 2026-07-19 (ISO week 2026-W29). 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
33
With monetary penalty
3 of 33
Courts
21
ISO week
2026-W29

Week over week: 33 sanctions filed the week of 2026-07-13 vs 30 sanctions the prior week (2026-07-06) — up 3 from the prior week.

Outcomes this week

  • Warning7
  • Admonishment3
  • Admonishment & Warning1
  • Adverse Costs Order1
  • Apologies1
  • Bar Referral1
  • Brief Struck; Severe Warning1
  • Citation Struck; Monetary Fine1
  • Citations Struck1
  • Cle1
  • Cle On Generative Ai; Civil Contempt; Adverse Costs Order1
  • Court Struck The Inaccurate Citations, Ordered Show-cause, And Imposed Sanctions: Award Of Appellee's Attorneys' Fees And Costs (under A.r.s. §12-349 And Arcap 25) Related To The Hallucinated And Misrepresented Citations; Appellate Order Affirmed.1
  • False Citations Struck1
  • Impugned Order Set Aside And Matter Remanded For Fresh Decision1
  • Motion To Strike Denied1
  • No Award Of Costs As Sanctio1
  • No Professional Sanction Or Monetary Penalty. Application For Interim Orders Dismissed; Adjudicator Warned Applicant To Verify Ai-generated Content For Accuracy If Proceeding To Final Orders.1
  • Permission To Appeal Refused; No Professional Sanction Imposed.1

AI tool implicated

  • Implied21
  • Unidentified7
  • Claude1
  • Google AI1
  • GPT-3.51
  • Not specified1
  • Westlaw Precision1

This week’s read-across

33 rulings landed on the docket between 2026-07-13 and 2026-07-19. The most common recorded outcome this week was Warning (7 of 33). Of the 33 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 2026-07-13

Dineen/Shibata v. Kotchka

Arizona Court of Appeals, Division One · Decided 2026-07-15 · Court struck the inaccurate citations, ordered show-cause, and imposed sanctions: award of appellee's attorneys' fees and costs (under A.R.S. §12-349 and ARCAP 25) related to the hallucinated and misrepresented citations; appellate order affirmed. · AI tool: Unidentified.

Read the full teardown →

Broadwater Tower [2026] QBCCMCmr 221

QBCCMCmr · Decided 2026-07-14 · No professional sanction or monetary penalty. Application for interim orders dismissed; adjudicator warned applicant to verify AI-generated content for accuracy if proceeding to final orders. · AI tool: Unidentified.

Read the full teardown →

Courts represented this week

Nearby weeks

← Prev: 2026-W28 (30)Next: 2026-W30 (26) →

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.