Kusmin L. Amarsingh v. Frontier Airlines, Inc.

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

El 9 de febrero de 2026, CA Tenth Circuit (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en la herramienta de IA ChatGPT y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Appellant attributed propositions or quotations to a real case that did not contain the quoted language or stand for the cited proposition; court determined the attribution was inaccurate and resulted from AI output.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Brief contained seven case citations that the court could not locate; court ordered appellant to produce accurate copies or explain and concluded they were fabricated by ChatGPT.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. A second instance where appellant attributed a quotation or proposition to an actual opinion that did not contain that material; court treated this as an AI-produced misquote and part of the reckless failure to verify authorities.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant's brief included seven case citations that the court could not locate; court determined they were fabricated outputs of ChatGPT.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Appellant attributed propositions and quotations to two real cases that did not contain those propositions or quotations; court found the attributions inaccurate.

Desenlace

Monetary Sanction; Bar Referral. Sanción económica: 1000 USD. Sanción profesional: Yes.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1484/Amarsingh_v._Frontier_Airlines.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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