Euphoric, LLC et al. v. Westport Community Improvement District, et al.

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

El 3 de junio de 2026, W.D. Missouri (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

• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court identified Plaintiffs cited Stroud with an incorrect docket/citation and relied on it for a proposition the case did not support; court explained correct citation and that Stroud did not stand for Plaintiffs' asserted proposition.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court found Plaintiffs mis-cited Affordable Communities (wrong case number/Westlaw cite/date) and that the cited decision differed from Plaintiffs' representation.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court flagged Plaintiffs' incorrect citation to Family Dollar/Tsai (wrong case number and Westlaw cite) and that Plaintiffs' briefing misstated the authority.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court concluded Plaintiffs relied on Cook v. MFA Livestock for a 'single phone call' proposition although Cook did not involve or support that fact pattern; court characterized Plaintiffs' use as inaccurate/misleading.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court found Plaintiffs cited Institutional Food as supporting a broad proposition about Missouri law prohibiting interference based on discriminatory motives, but the cited decision did not support that proposition and was inapposite.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court noted Plaintiffs mischaracterized Gregory v. Dillard’s as addressing 'racially coded language' while the Eighth Circuit's discussion concerned surveillance and differential treatment; the representation was misleading.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court observed Plaintiffs cited MX Group for a broad proposition about stereotypes and civil-rights law though MX Group involved ADA 'regarded as' disability claims and was not directly analogous; Plaintiffs' reliance was misleading.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court found Plaintiffs miscited Bradford and used it to support an unrelated procedural proposition; the case did not support Plaintiffs' statement.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Court identified a quoted passage Plaintiffs attributed to Arbors at Sugar Creek that did not appear in that decision, noting a misquotation.

Desenlace

Admonishment. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/2275/Euphoric_v._Westport_USA_3_June_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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