AI Failure Index
AI Hallucination failures
Hallucination is the most cataloged failure mode. The model produces output that is fluent, confident, and wrong. It happens in chatbots that invent legal precedents, copilots that misquote internal policy, voice agents that promise things the company will not honor, and search products that synthesize fake sources. The mechanism is statistical, not malicious. The cost is reputational, legal, and financial.
Hallucination failures
Confidence holds, and even spikes, as the claim detaches from any source.
- Records
- 215
- Severity mix
- 7 catastrophic · 89 high · 105 medium · 14 low
- Industries
- 10
- Incident span
- Feb 2016 to Jul 2026
- Sources cited
- 541
- Newest indexed
- Jul 2026
Question → confident generation → no grounding check → fabricated claim → public reliance
Nothing ties the claim back to a real source.
- Watch for the moment a model commits to a claim with no grounding, not just the final wording.
- Require a source-binding or retrieval check before a generated fact reaches a user or a filing.
- Escalate ungrounded claims in legal or regulated contexts, where one fabrication is catastrophic.
215 records in this class.
Open all 215 in the research console
The 11th Circuit referred Anthony Sabatini for replacing eight hallucinated cases with eight more
On July 10, 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit published Estate of Lane Caviness v. Atlas Air (No. 24-11033), reprimanding Florida lawyer and Lake County Commissioner Anthony Sabatini for briefs 'replete with fake and hallucinated citations.' His opening brief relied on at least eight nonexistent cases, including one supposedly decided by the Eleventh Circuit itself. After opposing counsel flagged them, Sabatini filed an untimely reply withdrawing eight cases, and none matched the original eight, and all eight replacements were also fabricated. Judge Britt Grant wrote that 'whatever the merits of artificial intelligence, it is no substitute for actual intelligence' and referred Sabatini to the court's Committee on Lawyer Qualifications and Conduct.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A judge struck a Roc Nation filing over AI-fabricated quotes, Tyrone Blackburn's third AI sanction
On July 10, 2026, U.S. Magistrate Judge Jennifer Willis struck a brief filed by attorney Tyrone Blackburn in his client Terrance Dixon's employment-misconduct case against Roc Nation after finding quotations that did not appear in the cases cited, calling his conduct 'an outrageous breach of his ethical and professional obligations' and a 'continued pattern of behavior.' Blackburn had already been sanctioned $5,000 in Pennsylvania federal court and $6,000 in New Jersey federal court for AI-hallucinated citations, and separately referred to SDNY's Grievance Committee over deposition conduct. He responded that his cited decisions were real but paraphrased; Willis wrote that his explanation 'brazenly minimizes' the conduct. The tracking database courts now cite counted 1,667 U.S. AI-fabrication cases by mid-2026, up from about 230 a year earlier.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Coinbase pushed an AI 'breaking news' alert declaring a World Cup result before kickoff
On July 9, 2026, Coinbase sent a mass AI-generated news alert claiming Norway had beaten Brazil 3-2 to reach the World Cup quarter-finals. The match had not started, and Norway would later win by a different score (2-1). The alert landed as Coinbase was promoting AI-driven trading insights alongside a partnership with the prediction-market app Kalshi, where a fabricated sports result could move real money.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Who Gives A Crap suspended an AI email agent after it told a customer their price would double
In July 2026, the direct-to-consumer brand Who Gives A Crap suspended the AI tool it uses to draft some customer emails after the agent told a subscriber their toilet paper delivery would change from 48 rolls at $66.00 to 24 rolls at $69.50, effectively doubling the per-roll price. A second AI-generated email reaffirmed the incorrect figures. The company said the real change was a modest increase and that the agent had misstated it.
- Confidence
- Low (single source)
An AI threat report branded a startup a Chinese spy front and got its domains blocked worldwide
The video-conferencing startup MeetingTV sued Palo Alto Networks and its recently acquired Koi Security in July 2026, alleging a Koi blog post used an LLM to generate a threat report that hallucinated findings and published them as fact. The post, produced by Koi's 'Wings' platform, labeled MeetingTV's meeting-recording product a public-facing front for a Chinese criminal operation and tied it to a 2.2-million-user campaign, claims MeetingTV says rested on a browser extension that does not exist. Security firms blocked the startup's domains as malware.
- Confidence
- Low (single source)
A Pennsylvania federal court suspended an attorney six months for AI-hallucinated citations
In June 2026, U.S. District Chief Judge Matthew Brann of the Middle District of Pennsylvania sanctioned attorney Nicholas W. Mattiacci Sr. for filing briefs with AI-generated hallucinated citations, ordering a $1,500 penalty and suspending him from practice in the district for six months beginning June 22. The judge rejected the attorney's attempt to blame research tools and label the errors inadvertent, and noted it was not his first disregard for the court's rules.
- Confidence
- Low (single source)
KPMG pulls AI report after organizations dispute claims
KPMG withdrew its "Total Experience: Redefining Excellence in the Age of Agentic AI" report after several organizations stated the claims about their AI usage were untrue. Research by GPTZero revealed that the majority of the report's citations were AI-generated hallucinations.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Law Society of Ontario lawyer fined 31,150 CAD for Grok hallucinations
A lawyer was ordered to pay 31,150 CAD in adverse costs after using Grok to file fabricated legal authorities in a Canadian tribunal case. The incident demonstrates the risks of relying on AI for legal research without manual verification.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Procureur général du Canada sanctioned pro se litigant for AI fabricated case law
A self-represented litigant in Canada was sanctioned by the Federal Court for submitting fabricated case law generated by AI. The court emphasized that citing non-existent sources is a serious matter that undermines the administration of justice.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A Texas federal judge sanctioned an attorney for AI-fabricated citations in a TCPA case
In McCormick v. Texakoma Financial, Inc., decided June 11, 2026, the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Texas sanctioned attorney Amy L.B. Ginsburg after her summary-judgment response cited a nonexistent case, fabricated quotations, and misstated legal principles that appeared to come from generative AI. Judge Amos Mazzant struck the response, imposed a $5,000 penalty jointly on Ginsburg and her firm, ordered CLE and a review of her 2026 filings, and required a verification certification on future filings citing authority.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Harbor Distributing lawyer sanctioned for AI fabricated case law
A lawyer for Harbor Distributing, LLC used AI to generate legal citations and quotes that were found to be fabricated. The court imposed a $6,000 sanction and referred the lawyer to the state bar.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Bowers files fabricated case law in Arizona court
A Pro Se litigant in Arizona submitted court filings containing fabricated case law generated by AI. The incident was documented in a database of AI legal hallucinations.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Iowa appeal dismissed after pro se litigant filed fabricated case law, AI suspected
Pro se litigant Mynesia A. Anderson submitted legal filings in an Iowa child support appeal containing fabricated case law and false quotes. The court identified the hallucinations and subsequently dismissed the appeal.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Henry County Schools v. Grant case involves AI fabricated case law
A lawyer and judge in the Georgia case Henry County Schools et al. v. Grant et al. submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law. The incident occurred on June 10, 2026, and resulted in the vacation of the trial court's order.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
LiveVideo.AI Corp lawyer sanctioned for fabricated case law in SDNY
In the case of LiveVideo.AI Corp. v. Redstone, a lawyer submitted filings containing hallucinated case law. The S.D.N.Y. court imposed an adverse costs order of $80,056 and referred the attorney to the bar.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
The Doc App counsel files fabricated case law in Florida court
A lawyer representing The Doc App, Inc. used AI to generate court filings that included fake case law. The court flagged the hallucinations and previously sanctioned the attorney, though it declined further sanctions in June 2026.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Westendorf AI hallucination in BCCRT legal filing
A Pro Se litigant in the case Wong v. Westendorf used generative AI to draft legal arguments, resulting in the citation of a non-existent act. The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal identified the hallucination on June 8, 2026.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
City of Aberdeen legal team sanctioned for First Drafts AI hallucinations
Lawyers in the case Withers v. City of Aberdeen used AI to file documents containing fabricated case law. The court imposed an $8,000 fine and disqualified several attorneys after discovering the hallucinations.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
The Ninth Circuit sanctioned two attorneys for AI-fabricated citations in immigration briefs
The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit sanctioned attorneys Mike Sethi and William Rounds for filing immigration briefs that cited nonexistent cases generated by AI and for subsequently misrepresenting the source of those errors. The court imposed a $2,500 fine on each attorney, a six-month suspension from practice before the Ninth Circuit, and a two-year requirement to disclose any AI use in future filings. This was the Ninth Circuit's first published ruling addressing lawyer responsibility for AI errors.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Lawyer Mike Singh Sethi sanctioned in 9th Circuit for AI fabricated case law
Lawyer Mike Singh Sethi was sanctioned by the 9th Circuit for submitting AI-generated fabricated case law in the Lnu v. Blanche case. The sanctions included a $5,000 fine and a six-month suspension of his law license.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Reaves Law Firm sanctioned for filing AI generated fabricated case law
A federal court in Tennessee sanctioned Reaves Law Firm, PLLC after the firm submitted filings containing hallucinated legal citations. The court issued a Rule 11 sanction, including a bar referral and an adverse costs order.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
Todd Blanche sanctioned by Seventh Circuit for AI hallucinations in legal brief
Lawyer Todd Blanche was sanctioned $5,000 by the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals after filing a brief containing fabricated case law and false record representations generated by ChatGPT. The court also referred the matter to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
A German court held Google directly liable for false claims generated by its AI Overviews
In a ruling dated May 28, 2026 and made public in June, the Regional Court of Munich I (LG Munich I) prohibited Google from disseminating untrue factual claims about two Munich publishers through its AI Overviews, classifying Google not as a neutral intermediary but as a direct disturber responsible for its AI's output. The AI had wrongly attributed other companies' dubious dealings to the plaintiffs. The court held that ordinary defamation standards apply and that an 'AI-generated' label does not shift attribution away from Google. Google said it would appeal.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
California judge relied on fictitious AI case law in H.C. v. Contreras
A California judge's ruling was reversed after the court relied on a fictitious case citation produced by generative AI. The trial court had ignored warnings from opposing counsel regarding the nonexistent authority.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
New Zealand government faces criticism over AI plan to cut 8,500 jobs
The New Zealand government announced a plan to cut 8,500 public sector jobs via AI automation to save 2.4 billion dollars. This decision was widely criticized for its lack of regulatory oversight and potential to degrade public service quality.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Argentina's predictive AI digital twin fails to predict typo in own promo video
Argentina's Ministry of Human Capital launched a 'Social Digital Twin' AI to simulate policy impacts. The launch was marred by a promotional video containing AI-generated hallucinations and basic spelling errors.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
Argentina Ministry of Human Capital AI announcement video riddled with errors
Argentina's Ministry of Human Capital launched a "Social Digital Twin" AI to simulate social policy impacts. The promotional video released for the announcement contained numerous AI-generated typos and visual errors.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
AI chatbots provided misinformation in 34 percent of Scottish election queries
A study by the think-tank Demos found that AI chatbots frequently provided false information about the 2026 Scottish Parliament election. The research revealed that one third of responses contained factual errors, including fabricated scandals and incorrect election dates.
- Confidence
- High (multi-source, primary)
EY retracts loyalty rewards report after AI hallucinations and fake footnotes discovered
EY withdrew a cybersecurity report on loyalty rewards programs after researchers found it contained fabricated data and non-existent citations. The report was used by EY Canada for marketing purposes but was retracted once the AI-generated errors were exposed.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)
GOV.UK Chat AI provides misleading tax advice to citizens
The GOV.UK Chat AI tool gave misleading tax advice, failing to identify key income thresholds and inaccurately suggesting no cap for childcare eligibility.
- Confidence
- Medium (multi-source)