CommNV, LLC v. Uprise, LLC

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

El 6 de agosto de 2025, Nevada DC (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court could not locate the cited opinion and found no supporting language; the citation appears fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court could not find the cited decision or quoted language; the opinion as cited appears fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court could not locate a decision matching the citation or the quoted language; the citation appears fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court could not find the cited opinion or the quoted language in Westlaw; the decision appears fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Citation contains chronological and citation errors and the quoted language does not appear in any located decision; court deems it fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court located no matching federal decision and the cited Westlaw number corresponds to an unrelated case; the federal Transamerica citation appears fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court could not locate any decision matching the citation or quoted language; the decision appears fictitious.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Court could not find the cited case and the quotation does not appear in any located authority; the citation appears fictitious.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Buzz Stew is a real Nevada decision but the quoted language Uprise provided does not appear in the opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Calloway is a real Nevada decision but the specific language Uprise quotes is not found in the opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Cates is a real decision; similar language appears in a concurrence but the exact quoted language is not in the published opinion as cited.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Crane is real but does not support the notice-pleading proposition Uprise attributes to it; the decision was misrepresented.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Fidelity & Deposit is a real case but Uprise's pin cite references a non-existent page and the case does not stand for the proposition cited.

Desenlace

Order to Explain. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/2357/30_-_CommNV_LLC_v_Uprise_LLC.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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