Crypto Open Patent Alliance v. Wright (2)

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

El 12 de mayo de 2025, UK (Reino Unido) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) 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. Cited non-existent case law authorities in his Court of Appeal permission materials; Arnold LJ noted numerous false references to authority and certified the application TWM.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misrepresented legal authorities in his appeal filings; both Arnold LJ and Mellor J remarked on misstatements of authority.
• Tergiversación de pruebas o escritos. Falsely asserted the Court failed to follow autism experts’ recommendations on special measures during his evidence in the Joint Trial; identified by Arnold LJ as one of many falsehoods.
• Tergiversación de pruebas o escritos. Falsely claimed the Court refused an application to admit expert evidence from Dr Bryant; rejected in the Court of Appeal reasons.
• Tergiversación de pruebas o escritos. Falsely stated the Court relied on evidence from individuals (e.g., Jameson Lopp) who did not give evidence; identified as a falsehood by the Court of Appeal.
• Tergiversación de otro material. Repeated false allegations of judicial bias in appeal and subsequent filings; expressly rejected by Arnold LJ and Mellor J.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. In his Supreme Court petition, falsely alleged the High Court reversed the burden of proof and/or applied the criminal standard; noted by the Court as a falsehood.
• Tergiversación de otro material. In his Supreme Court petition, falsely claimed the High Court failed to account for his autism condition; identified by the Court as untrue.
• Tergiversación de pruebas o escritos. In his Supreme Court petition, falsely asserted COPA’s expert witnesses were biased due to financial interests; identified as a falsehood.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited non-existent authorities in the New Claim filings; Mellor J noted use of AI-generated prolix documents containing such errors.
• Tergiversación de norma legal. Advanced lengthy submissions on promissory estoppel that the Court characterised as legal nonsense, mis-stating the doctrine.

Desenlace

General Civil Restraint Order (GCRO) granted for 3 years; Case referred to Attorney General; Costs awarded to applicants.. Sanción económica: 100000 GBP. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/449/Crypto_Open_Patent_Alliance_v._Wright_UK_May_12_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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