Onyinye Udokporo v Enrich International

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 diciembre de 2025, IPO (Reino Unido) 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

• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited 'Combit Software GmBH v Commit Business Solutions [2014] EWHC 3605' claiming judicial comment on minor consonant changes; court found this citation fabricated and the appellant later supplied a different EU case (C-223/15).
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Appellant cited 'Speciality European Pharma Ltd v Doncaster Pharmaceuticals Group Ltd [2015] EWHC 2556' as authority on NOVA vs SUPERNOVA; court found that citation fabricated (the similarly named real decision was unrelated (2013) and concerned repackaging).
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Appellant reproduced quotations attributed to The European Limited v Economist Newspaper Ltd [1998] FSR 283 that the tribunal found were not present in that form in the judgment; differences went beyond transcription errors.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Appellant reproduced quotations attributed to Maier v Asos Plc [2015] EWCA Civ 220 that the tribunal found were not present in that form in the judgment; differences went beyond transcription errors.

Desenlace

Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de https://naturalandartificiallaw.com/ai-privilege-us-v-heppner-ukipo/; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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