Casey A. Gaddy v. Wood Brothers Bar, Inc., et al.

Ficha del Equipo Editorial a partir de la base mundial AI Hallucination Cases de Damien Charlotin. Verifica siempre en la fuente original.

El 9 de junio de 2026, E.D. Pennsylvania (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de pruebas o escritos. Repeated citation to a Baldwin text message that does not exist in the record; Court found the communication fabricated by plaintiff.
• Fabricación de pruebas o escritos. Plaintiff claimed Esser texted that she was 'coming back to close' on disputed nights; Court found no such text in the record and labeled it an invention.
• Tergiversación de pruebas o escritos. Plaintiff misattributed a text (quoted as from Gillespie) that was actually sent by Esser; Court corrected the attribution and rejected the plaintiff's inference based on it.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff purported to quote Tomasso v. Boeing for language about an inadequately informed decision; Court noted Tomasso contains no such quote and the citation was inaccurate.
• Tergiversación de pruebas o escritos. Plaintiff claimed Woody’s president 'explicitly' said video surveillance was available when fired; Court found this was a misrepresentation of the Weiss interview (Weiss said only there was proof of receipts and dispute notifications).

Desenlace

Admonishment. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/2399/Gaddy_v._Wood_Brothers_Bar_USA_6_June_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

¿Conoces un caso que falte, o uno colombiano que debamos cubrir a fondo? Escríbenos.