Jamisson Roriz de Santana Andrade v. Tribunal Superior do Trabalho

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

El 12 de mayo de 2025, Supremo Tribunal Federal (Brasil) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA Implied use of MobiOffice's AI Assistant y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Petitioner cited RE 328.111/DF as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Petitioner cited ARE 1.218.084 AgR as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Petitioner cited RE 464.867/SP as precedent allegedly violated; the Court stated it could not locate such decision.
• Citas falsas de norma legal. Petitioner attributed to SV 6 a rule on penal acquittal barring administrative sanction; the Court said SV 6 actually concerns pay for initial military service.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Petitioner invoked RE 226.855/RS as supporting penal absolution’s binding effects; the Court clarified the case addressed FGTS monetary correction from economic plans, unrelated to the issue.

Desenlace

Case summarily dismissed; Counsel referred to the Bar Association; Claimant ordered to pay double the costs. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/334/Santana_Andrade_v._TST_Brazil_May_12_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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