Nguedi v. General Dynamics Information Technology

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

El 31 de marzo de 2026, D. D.C. (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una IA generativa no identificada y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed a nonexistent quotation to Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms; court found the quote does not appear in the decision and the case does not involve the stated proposition.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed a nonexistent quotation and legal proposition to Figueroa v. Pompeo; court determined the quoted language and asserted topic do not appear in that decision.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Cited Doe v. United States Postal Service as containing a holding about the Workers’ Compensation Act’s exclusivity provision; court found the case contains no such quote and does not address that statute.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Mischaracterized Richardson v. United States as supporting a broad rule about granting leave to amend at late stages; court noted the cited opinion did not address that proposition.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Misstated the holding of Doe v. McMillan, citing it for a proposition the court says is the opposite of the actual holding.

Desenlace

Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1909/Nguedi_v._AO_USA_31_March_2026.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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