Tameer Peak v. Onika Tanya Maraj-Petty, et al.

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

El 26 de noviembre de 2025, S.D. New York (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que una parte sin abogado (litigante pro se) se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff attributed the quotation "[a] default is willful where the conduct of counsel or the litigant was egregious and was not satisfactorily explained" to Action S.A. v. Marc Rich & Co.; the court found that quotation does not appear in that opinion.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff cited S.E.C. v. McNulty for the proposition that "waiting to retain counsel does not constitute good cause," but the court found no such quote in McNulty and noted the case addresses a different procedural posture.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Plaintiff claimed Shady Records held that reputational harm is a form of prejudice; the court found Shady Records said nothing of reputational harm and was about different relief.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. The court observed that multiple case quotations in plaintiff's Nov. 12, 2025 opposition cannot be found in the cited cases and described them as likely AI 'hallucinated' citations.

Desenlace

Plaintiff cautioned to disclose and verify any AI use. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1111/Peak_v._Maraj-Pety_USA_26_November_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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