James Fahey v. Wally’s Las Vegas, LLC, 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 15 de enero de 2026, D. Nevada (Estados Unidos) 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

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a statement about Rule 36 being self-executing to Asea v. Southern Pacific Transportation, but the Court determined the quoted language does not appear in that opinion as cited.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a burden-of-proof statement regarding sanctions to Marchand v. Mercy Medical Center, but the Court found the quotation does not appear in the cited opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a quote about discovery transparency (custodians, search terms, time frame) to Apple v. Samsung, but the Court found the quotation does not appear in the cited opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a quotation about reasonable ESI searches to the cited Facebook PPC order, but the Court found the quotation does not appear in that order.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed a quote about entitlement to know keyword searches to Apple v. Samsung, but the Court found the quotation does not appear in the cited opinion.

Desenlace

Warning. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1381/Fahey_v_Wallys_Las_Vegas_USA_15_January_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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