Published opinion, 31 March 2025 · source · PDF · 12 pages
899, 901 (1982) . Misled by fake cases made up by an artificial intelligence program, Plaintiff insists otherwise. But the actual, legitimate case law is clear: this Court must dismiss Plaintiff’s claim for lack of jurisdiction.
II. Plaintiff’s Filings Cite to Nonexistent, AI-Generated Authority. Notwithstanding the overwhelming case law directly to the contrary, Plaintiff insists that this Court has jurisdiction over unjust enrichment claims.
Resp. at 5–6. These cases do not exist. The reporter citation given for each case points to a page in the middle of a case with a different name, different subject, and in one case, a different court than the one included in Plaintiff’s citation.7 See Def.
See id. at 4–6. Defendant suggests that these nonexistent cases may be the product of an artificial intelligence (AI) program. Def.
Reply at 6. It is no secret that generative AI programs are known to “hallucinate” nonexistent cases, and with the advent of AI, courts have seen a rash of cases in which both counsel and pro se litigants have cited such fake, hallucinated cases in their briefs. See, e.g., Eugene V olokh, Six Federal Cases of Self -Represented Litigants Citing Fake Cases in 7 Plaintiff also cites “ B.
10 Briefs, Likely Because They Used AI Programs, Reason: V olokh Conspiracy (Nov. 11, 2023, 10:27 AM), https://reason.com/volokh/2023/11/13/self- represented-litigants-use-ai-to-write-briefs- produce-hallucinated-citations. The cases referenced by Plaintiff have the hallmarks of cases generated by AI found in other courts.8 Assuming Plaintiff used AI to help write her briefs, she wasted not only Defendant’s time, but also judicial resources.
July 18, 2024) (noting high rate of hallucinations). 11 improper and unacceptable for litigants – including pro se litigants – to submit ‘non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations.’” (quoting Mata, 678 F. Supp.
Nevertheless, Plaintiff is now aware of the risks of using AI, and is on notice that she may be subject to sanctions should she cite fake, AI -generated legal authority again. Accordingly, Plaintiff—and future litigants in this Court — are advised that any filings with citations to nonexistent cases may result in sanctions, including the striking of filings, the imposition of filing restrictions, monetary penalties, or dismiss al of the action . See Dukuray, 2024 WL 3812259, at *11.