Thackston v. Driscoll

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

El 28 de agosto de 2025, W.D. Texas (Estados Unidos) conoció un asunto en el que un abogado se apoyó en una herramienta de IA generativa (no identificada en la decisión) y el expediente registró contenido alucinado.

Qué se alucinó

• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited Fabela v. Socorro ISD for anti-retaliation/hostile-work-environment propositions the case does not discuss, per the court.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Asserted a Ninth Circuit opinion and quotation (United States v. City of Los Angeles, 595 F.3d 1006 (9th Cir. 2010)) that the court found does not exist in that reporter citation or elsewhere.
• Fabricación de doctrina. Attributed a remedial-quotation to the EEOC Compliance Manual (Section 3) that the court could not locate; court noted Section 3 concerns employee benefits, not 'remedies' as represented.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Cited Armstrong v. Turner Industries and supplied a restorative-remedy quotation and Rehabilitation Act context that the court found absent from the cited opinion.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Represented a Seventh Circuit AutoZone case as approving a consent decree with a third‑party monitor; court found the cited case number refers to an unrelated opinion and existing AutoZone decisions do not discuss appointment of such a monitor as claimed.
• Información desactualizada de jurisprudencia revocada. Relied on Chevron as controlling deference doctrine despite Chevron having been overruled by the Supreme Court in Loper Bright; court noted Chevron is overruled.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed a quotation about the Rehabilitation Act and restorative assignments to Palmer v. Shultz; court found Palmer is a Title VII D.C. Cir. case and the quoted language does not appear in Palmer or any case the court could locate.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Cited an opinion and quotation attributed to EEOC v. WC&M Enterprises, Inc.; court found the quoted language does not exist in that case or any federal case searched.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Attributed a specific quote to Delaval v. PTech Drilling Tubulars though the quotation does not appear in that decision, per the court's review.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Cited LHC Group for a retaliation-holding the court concluded that case is not about retaliation as presented by plaintiff.

Desenlace

Magistrate Judge recommended Rule 11 sanctions. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/730/Thackston_v._Secretary_of_the_Army_USA_28_August_2025.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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