Daniel James Cummins v. Moises Becerra

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 febrero de 2026, E.D. California (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. Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Vuong' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Arellano' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Calderon' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Petitioner's reply included a citation to 'Pham' which, per petitioner's errata and the court, does not appear in publicly available legal databases and was identified as erroneous.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. The motion and reply contain numerous other citations that either do not exist or do not support the propositions for which they were offered; the court found these bear the hallmarks of AI-generated 'hallucinated' cases.

Desenlace

Order to Show Cause. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1489/DANIEL_JAMES_CUMMINS_Petitioner_v_MOISES_BECERRA_et_al_Respondents.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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