Flycatcher v. Affable Avenue

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

El 5 de febrero de 2026, S.D. New York (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA NotebookLM; vLex; Paxton AI y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Affable's motion to dismiss included numerous non-existent case citations generated by AI; Opposing counsel identified at least 13 fabricated cases and the Court found 14 of 60 citations to be fake.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Proposed reply brief cited a nonexistent "Himmelstein v. Comcast of the D.C., LLC, 908 F.3d 49; aff'g 44 F. Supp. 3d 1 (D.D.C. 2012)"—citations that do not exist and were inconsistent with the intended New York Court of Appeals decision.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Response to Order to Show Cause quoted a passage presented as from Mata v. Avianca but the quoted language was actually from a secondary article by Christopher F. Lyon; counsel failed to attribute the quote properly.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Reply brief and subsequent explanations showed misattributed/mismatched reporter citations (e.g., counsel relied on a Google Scholar result for Himmelstein that returned unrelated D.D.C. citations like 931 F. Supp. 2d 48), reflecting AI- or search-induced misrepresentation of the authoritative source.

Desenlace

Brief Struck; Default Judgment. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1460/Flycatcher_v._Affable_Avenue_USA_5_February_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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