Pro Health Solutions Ltd v ProHealth Inc

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

El 20 de junio de 2025, Intellectual Property Office (Reino Unido) conoció un asunto en el que Pro Se Litigant; Lawyer se apoyó en la herramienta de IA ChatGPT y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Grounds of appeal included a purported quote not found in the cited decision (instance 1 of 3).
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Grounds of appeal included a purported quote not found in the cited decision (instance 2 of 3).
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Grounds of appeal included a purported quote not found in the cited decision (instance 3 of 3).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant's skeleton misrepresented what a correctly cited case decided (instance 1 of 3).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant's skeleton misrepresented what a correctly cited case decided (instance 2 of 3).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Appellant's skeleton misrepresented what a correctly cited case decided (instance 3 of 3).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Respondent's skeleton cited a case for a proposition with no basis in the judgment; counsel could not identify supporting passages (instance 1 of 3).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Respondent's skeleton cited a case for a proposition with no basis in the judgment; counsel could not identify supporting passages (instance 2 of 3).
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Respondent's skeleton cited a case for a proposition with no basis in the judgment; counsel could not identify supporting passages (instance 3 of 3).
• Tergiversación de doctrina. Respondent suggested Wadlow supported the propositions; after checking, the court found nothing matching.
• Tergiversación de doctrina. Respondent asserted a previous edition of Kerly supported the propositions; the court could find no such support.

Desenlace

Warning; No costs awarded for the appeal since both sides seemingly erred. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/586/June_Ralph_v._Pro_Health_UK_20_June_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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