Endure Industries, Inc. v. Defense Health Agency

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

El 23 de marzo de 2026, ASBCA (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

• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited PGBA, LLC v. United States to argue procurement structure favored incumbents and rendered participation illusory; Board noted PGBA is a bid protest decision about award protest procedures and does not support Endure's contract argument.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited Russell Corp. v. United States as if it held that an implied-in-fact contract existed when government directed procurement terms; Board noted Russell in fact found no contract and ruled against the contractor.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Cited a nonexistent decision, "BMS, Inc. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 33 (1987)"; Board found the case does not exist and that the nearby reporter citation corresponds to Johns-Manville, which does not support Endure's asserted propositions.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Attributed supportive legal statements to the fake BMS citation and to Johns-Manville that were actually either dicta or derived from the contractor's proposed findings; Johns-Manville ultimately ruled against the contractor.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited T. Brown Constructors, Inc. v. Pena to support that the government cannot impose procurement controls while denying a contract; Board observed T. Brown involved an existing express contract and contract interpretation, not a denial of contract.

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1981/1776341487278.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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