Coomer v. Lindell/MyPillow, Inc. (1)

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

El 7 de julio de 2025, D. Colorado (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA Co-Pilot, Westlaw’s AI, Gemini, Grok, Claude, ChatGPT, Perplexity y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Opposition falsely quotes Pure as stating 'reputation and character are inextricably intertwined'; court found the quote does not appear.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Opposition cites Reaves to claim evidence can implicate multiple evidentiary rules; court found Reaves discusses only Rule 608(b) and does not support that proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Opposition cites a non-existent Tenth Circuit case styled Perkins v. Fed. Fruit & Produce Co.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Opposition cites a non-existent District of Colorado case styled Estate of Martinelli v. City & County of Denver.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Opposition cites a non-existent Tenth Circuit case styled United States v. Hoffman/Hoffmann.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Opposition asserts Perrin supports routine admission of truthfulness evidence in defamation actions; court found Perrin is not a defamation case and does not state that rule.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Opposition lists United States v. Hassan as Tenth Circuit authority; court notes it is a Fourth Circuit case and not binding.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. In related Pelishek filing by same counsel, Swetlik is quoted for 'falsified government records affecting taxpayer funds,' which the court notes does not appear in the opinion.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. In related Pelishek filing, citation to Bohannan v. Doe with Ninth Circuit reporter page is non-existent per the court’s review.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. In related Pelishek filing, Gomez v. City of Chicago is cited to a WL citation that actually corresponds to a D.N.J. case (McKenna v. Verint).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Opposition misattributes Ginter as a District of Colorado decision; court notes it is from the Eastern District of Kentucky.

Desenlace

Monetary Sanctions. Sanción económica: 6000 USD. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/566/Coomer_v._Lindell_USA_7_July_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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