This tracker catalogs federal court responses to AI in litigation. Coverage focuses on judicial conduct: standing orders, sanctions decisions, local rule amendments, and framework-setting opinions. Each entry includes a neutral holding paraphrase, primary-source citation, and a doctrinal-framework tag identifying the rule the order establishes.
The dataset is freely downloadable in JSON and CSV. Editorial standard: no per-litigant commentary; sanctioned attorneys are named only as identified in the underlying order. For broader case-level coverage of AI hallucinations across jurisdictions, see the AI Hallucination Cases Database maintained by Damien Charlotin, which we cite as a complementary resource.
Bankruptcy Court Orders (Primary Focus)
FTC v. Rite Aid Corporation: Consent Order on AI Facial Recognition Misuse
FTC's FIRST ENFORCEMENT ACTION against a company for AI bias and unfair AI use. Establishes the FEDERAL AI BIAS ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK under FTC Act Section 5: AI deployment without reasonable bias-mitigation safeguards constitutes an unfair practice subject to FTC enforcement. No...
View entry →In re Martin: Order Imposing Sanctions on Debtor's Counsel for AI-Hallucinated Citations
First published bankruptcy-court opinion sanctioning attorney AI misuse (per ABI characterization). Establishes the BANKRUPTCY-COURT FRAMEWORK for AI-hallucinated citations under Bankruptcy Rule 9011 (the bankruptcy-court analog to Fed. R. Civ. P. 11). Court emphasized that 'at t...
View entry →In re Jackson Hospital: Public Reprimand and Fee Award for AI-Hallucinated Citations
Establishes the BIGLAW BANKRUPTCY-PRACTICE FRAMEWORK: large law firms practicing in bankruptcy court face the same Rule 9011 duties as solo practitioners and small firms, and pre-paying sanctions to avoid a hearing does not insulate counsel from public reprimand. The supplemental...
View entry →Glyndon Square LLC Adversary Proceeding: Order on AI-Hallucinated Bankruptcy Citations
Establishes the NON-MONETARY-SANCTION FRAMEWORK in bankruptcy court for AI-hallucinated citations: where the misconduct is more isolated (two fabricated cases rather than systemic pattern across multiple briefs), bankruptcy courts may deploy non-monetary remedies (public notation...
View entry →In re Prince USA: Sullivan & Cromwell Emergency Letter on AI-Generated Hallucinations
Emergency self-disclosure pattern. Significant as a proactive-disclosure framework: where AI-fabricated content is detected post-filing, prompt self-reporting (rather than concealment or doubling-down) is being used by sanctions-aware counsel as a mitigation strategy. Demonstrate...
View entry →Sanctions Orders
Mata v. Avianca, Inc.: Opinion and Order on Sanctions
Court held that respondents acted with subjective bad faith sufficient for sanctions under Fed. R. Civ. P. 11. Use of generative AI tools does not relieve attorneys of the independent duty to verify the authenticity of cited authority before submission.
View entry →Gauthier v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.: Sanctions Order on Plaintiff's Counsel for AI-Hallucinated Citations
Establishes the EDUCATIONAL-REMEDY FRAMEWORK: monetary sanctions paired with mandatory CLE-style AI course attendance as a corrective sanction. Reflects an emerging judicial recognition that attorney AI competence is a learnable skill and that remediation through education comple...
View entry →Recommended Sanctions Against Attorney Rafael Ramirez for AI-Hallucinated Citations in ERISA Briefs
Recommendation establishes the REPEATED-INSTANCE-WITHIN-CASE FRAMEWORK for Rule 11 sanctions: where AI-fabricated citations appear in multiple briefs across the same matter, the appropriate sanction scales from per-citation rates toward a substantial flat amount reflecting the su...
View entry →Noland v. Land of the Free, L.P.: Order on AI-Fabricated Citations
California's first published appellate opinion on AI-fabricated citations. Establishes two distinct doctrines: (1) the $10,000 monetary-sanction baseline for state appellate AI-citation misconduct, consistent with the Watson per-infraction-rate framework but as a flat amount; and...
View entry →Couvrette v. Wisnovsky: Order on Motion for Sanctions and Dismissal
Court dismissed plaintiff's claims, imposed approximately $110,000 in monetary sanctions and fee-shifting, and referred the matter to the Oregon State Bar after finding attorneys repeatedly submitted briefs containing AI-fabricated authorities. Local counsel held jointly accounta...
View entry →Sanctions Order Against Gabriel A. Watson
Oregon Court of Appeals characterized the proliferation of AI-generated sketchy legal documents as 'a very grave situation' and established a per-infraction sanctions framework: $500 per fabricated citation, $1,000 per fabricated quotation. The framework has been cited in subsequ...
View entry →Fivehouse v. United States: Show-Cause Order on AUSA AI-Fabricated Citations
First high-profile federal-prosecutor AI-hallucination sanctions matter, with a Department of Justice attorney as the sanctioned actor. Establishes the GOVERNMENT-ATTORNEY FRAMEWORK: federal prosecutors face the same Rule 11 and candor-toward-tribunal duties as private counsel wh...
View entry →Sanctions Order Against District Attorney Xavier Solis for AI-Hallucinated Citations and Failure to Disclose AI Use
First documented case of CHARGES DISMISSED as a remedy for prosecutor AI-hallucination misconduct. Establishes the CRIMINAL-PROSECUTION FRAMEWORK: undisclosed AI use plus fabricated citations in a state criminal case can result in dismissal of charges (without prejudice to refili...
View entry →Whiting v. City of Athens: Sanctions Order
Sixth Circuit imposed $15,000-per-attorney punitive fines plus fee-shifting and double costs after finding fabricated citations across multiple briefs. Court explicitly justified the elevated sanction amount on the ground that 'smaller fines have plainly been inadequate, as is ev...
View entry →Sanctions Order Against Raja Rajan (Second Instance)
Court imposed escalating monetary sanction ($5,000, doubled from prior $2,500) against attorney for repeat filing of AI-hallucinated briefs and warned that a third instance would trigger referral to the attorney's licensing-state disciplinary board. Notable for the cross-jurisdic...
View entry →Standing Orders
Mandatory Certification Regarding Generative Artificial Intelligence
Standing order requires AI-disclosure certification on every filing; non-compliant filings will be struck. Attorneys remain responsible under Rule 11 for the contents of any filing they sign regardless of AI involvement.
View entry →Standing Order for Civil Cases Before Judge Fuentes (revised to add AI section)
Standing order establishes the **Rule 11-grounded framework** for judicial AI governance: rather than creating a new AI-specific certification regime, the order reaffirms that existing Rule 11 obligations apply to AI-assisted filings. Order language: 'Just as the Court did before...
View entry →Standing Order: In Re: Artificial Intelligence ("AI") in Cases Assigned to Judge Baylson
Standing order pioneers the **broadest-scope framework** for judicial AI governance: requirement applies to *any* AI use in filing preparation, generative or otherwise, with mandatory accuracy verification of every citation to law or record. Among the early-wave standing orders, ...
View entry →Order on Artificial Intelligence (cases assigned to Judge Vaden)
Standing order pioneers the **confidentiality / business-proprietary disclosure-risk framework** for judicial AI governance. Distinct from Starr (accuracy/Rule 11 framework) and Baylson (broad-scope verification framework). Vaden's framework recognizes a second category of AI-use...
View entry →Disciplinary Referrals
People v. Zachariah C. Crabill: Stipulation to Discipline
Disciplinary court approved stipulated suspension establishing the state-bar disciplinary framework for AI-driven citation hallucinations: filing AI-generated authorities without verification implicates competence and diligence rules; subsequent dishonesty about the source of the...
View entry →Park v. Kim: Order Referring Counsel for Disciplinary Proceedings
Citation to a nonexistent case suggests conduct that falls below the basic obligations of counsel. Use of generative AI tools does not excuse an attorney from separately ensuring that submissions to the court are accurate or legally tenable.
View entry →Executive Branch Actions
NIST AI Risk Management Framework 1.0 (AI RMF 1.0)
Establishes the FOUNDATIONAL VOLUNTARY US AI GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK. Adopted as a key technical reference by federal agencies under EO 14110 / OMB M-24-10. Remains operationally durable across administrations because of its voluntary, technical-reference status (rather than regulat...
View entry →EEOC Technical Assistance: Title VII Application to AI-Based Employment Selection Procedures
Establishes the EEOC AI HIRING DISPARATE-IMPACT FRAMEWORK: AI-based employment selection tools are subject to the same Title VII disparate-impact analysis as traditional selection procedures. The Uniform Guidelines' Four-Fifths Rule (a selection rate for protected-class members b...
View entry →Executive Order 14110: Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy Development and Use of Artificial Intelligence
The most comprehensive U.S. federal-government AI governance instrument issued to date at the time of issuance. Directed over 50 federal entities to take more than 100 specific actions across eight policy areas: safety and security; innovation and competition; supporting workers;...
View entry →FTC v. Rite Aid Corporation: Consent Order on AI Facial Recognition Misuse
FTC's FIRST ENFORCEMENT ACTION against a company for AI bias and unfair AI use. Establishes the FEDERAL AI BIAS ENFORCEMENT FRAMEWORK under FTC Act Section 5: AI deployment without reasonable bias-mitigation safeguards constitutes an unfair practice subject to FTC enforcement. No...
View entry →OMB Memorandum M-24-10: Advancing Governance, Innovation, and Risk Management for Agency Use of Artificial Intelligence
Operationalizing companion to EO 14110. Establishes the FEDERAL AGENCY AI GOVERNANCE FRAMEWORK: every federal executive-branch agency must designate a Chief AI Officer, maintain an AI use-case inventory, and apply differentiated risk management to rights-impacting and safety-impa...
View entry →CFPB Final Rule on AI in Automated Valuation Models for Home Mortgage Appraisals
Establishes the CONSUMER-FINANCE AI VALIDATION FRAMEWORK: federal regulation of AI/algorithmic systems used in consumer mortgage decisions through quality-control, bias-mitigation, and conflict-of-interest requirements. Notable as one of the first federal regulations directly imp...
View entry →Executive Order 14179: Removing Barriers to American Leadership in Artificial Intelligence
Revokes Executive Order 14110 (Biden's Safe, Secure, and Trustworthy AI). Establishes the DEREGULATORY FEDERAL AI FRAMEWORK: rescinds the federal-government AI safety/security testing requirements, foundation-model developer reporting obligations, and centralized federal AI gover...
View entry →OMB Memorandum M-25-21: Accelerating Federal Use of AI through Innovation, Governance, and Public Trust
Replacement memorandum that reframes federal AI governance toward acceleration and innovation, partially superseding M-24-10. Preserves some operational structures (Chief AI Officer roles, AI use-case inventories) but reorients the policy emphasis from safety/rights-protection to...
View entry →Legislation
Colorado Senate Bill 24-205: Consumer Protections for Artificial Intelligence (Colorado AI Act)
FIRST COMPREHENSIVE STATE AI CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW with broad scope (Colorado is the second US state to enact major AI consumer-protection legislation; the first is the subject of jurisdictional debate among practitioners). Establishes the STATE-LEVEL HIGH-RISK AI FRAMEWORK: ri...
View entry →Other Orders
United States v. Cohen: Order Declining Sanctions on AI-Hallucinated Citations
Court found the false citations 'embarrassing and certainly negligent' but declined to impose sanctions, finding neither Cohen nor Schwartz acted in 'bad faith.' Holding establishes the GOOD-FAITH FRAMEWORK for AI-hallucination cases: where the filer demonstrates a genuine misund...
View entry →