The tracker counts US court findings that a filing relied on legal authority generated by AI that turned out to be fabricated or misstated. This page explains where the entries come from, what is counted, what is left out, and how to cite the numbers.
Every entry comes from the AI Hallucination Cases Database compiled by Damien Charlotin, which collects court decisions worldwide where a judge addressed AI-generated hallucinations in a filing. The database is published under the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 licence (CC BY 4.0), which allows reuse with credit. The tracker carries that credit on every view.
What we changed: Litigation Sentinel kept United States courts only, left out entries the database marks as alleged or disputed by a vendor, grouped courts by state and level, grouped outcomes into categories, and computed the counts shown. Litigation Sentinel is not affiliated with or endorsed by the author.
We use the published facts only: the caption, court, date, filer type, outcome, stated penalty, and the source link the database records. We do not reproduce the database's case descriptions or its lists of the fabricated items. We do not publish the names of lawyers or law firms in our own copy, and the case list shows only the court caption as recorded by the database.
A finding counts when the database records a US court or tribunal decision addressing AI-fabricated or misstated authority in a filing: invented cases, false quotations, or holdings a cited case does not contain. Each decision is one finding. The decision date sets the month and year.
The headline number counts findings where a lawyer filed the material, including prosecutors and government counsel. Findings involving self-represented litigants, experts, and other filers are counted in the totals and the trend. Self-represented litigants are private individuals, so their cases are never listed by name; an entry that tags both a lawyer and a self-represented filer is counted as self-represented. Lawyer-filed findings in family, juvenile, guardianship, or estate cases, and “In re” or “Matter of” captions that do not plainly name a company or a multi-case litigation, are also counted but not listed.
Left out: entries the database marks as alleged rather than found (9 US entries), entries a tool vendor disputes (13), and entries with no decision date (1).
Outcomes are grouped by Litigation Sentinel from the database's outcome entry, and each finding is counted once under its most serious outcome: discipline or removal, then a bar referral, then money, then a struck filing or dismissal, then an order to show cause, then a warning. Court level comes from the court name; where a state uses “SC” for both a Superior Court and a Supreme Court, the level is shown as not classified rather than guessed. Dollar figures are the US amounts the database records; where it records that fees or costs were ordered without an amount, the finding is counted as a money outcome with no dollar figure.
The tracker keeps entries the database assigns to the United States: 1,490 findings after the exclusions above, out of 2,242 entries worldwide. Each court is mapped to a state from its name; 99.8% of state-assignable US findings map to a state. Federal appeals courts and national tribunals (such as the Court of Federal Claims and the GAO) cover more than one state, so they count in the national figures and not in any one state.
Decisions reach the database after they are issued. The two most recent months on the trend chart are marked as still being reported: recent months may gain entries as the database is updated, and their current counts do not show whether the pace rose or fell. The weekly figure is an average of recorded findings: this year's lawyer-filed findings divided by the weeks elapsed.
The tracker refreshes weekly from the database's published file. Each refresh rebuilds every count from scratch and runs validation checks before anything ships: totals must reconcile, every listed entry includes the source link recorded by the database, and no lawyer or firm name field may appear. If the source licence or file format changes, the tracker keeps the last good data with its date.
Last refreshed October 29, 2026; findings counted through October 23, 2026.
The tracker is free to cite with attribution. Lift this line as written:
Spot an entry that is wrong, or a finding that has been vacated or reversed? Write to wesley@caseglide.com with the court, the case, and a link to the order. Corrections to an underlying entry also go to the database author through the database page. Accepted fixes ship in the next weekly refresh.
Back to the AI Sanctions Tracker →