Valve Corporation v. Rothschild 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 9 de febrero de 2026, W.D. Washington (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

• Información desactualizada de jurisprudencia revocada. Defendants relied on Mukhtar without acknowledging it was subsequently overruled by later Ninth Circuit authority; plaintiff notes the failure to acknowledge overruling.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Defendants cited a non-existent PacTool opinion and quoted text that does not exist in the case; plaintiff's counsel states the opinion does not exist and the quoted text is fabricated.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Defendants quoted language attributed to Crow Tribe that is not contained in the opinion; plaintiff notes the case exists but the quoted text is fabricated.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Defendants attributed a quotation to Cordis (Fed. Cir.) that does not appear in the opinion; plaintiff identifies the quote as fabricated.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Defendants quoted Bilzerian for language about expert testimony creating an "aura of authority"—plaintiff states the quoted text does not appear in Bilzerian and the proposition is unsupported by that case.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Defendants partially misquoted Primiano; plaintiff notes the quoted language is incorrect and provides the correct formulation from the case.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Defendants attribute an “ipse dixit” quote to Micro Chem. plaintiff says the case exists but the quoted language is not found and the case does not support Defendants' broader proposition.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Defendants cited an Amazon.com v. Personal Web Technologies opinion that plaintiff reports does not exist in the W.D. Wash.; plaintiff identifies the opinion as fabricated.
• Fabricación de jurisprudencia. Defendants cited Diamondback Industries v. Repeat Precision opinion and quoted a holding that plaintiff reports does not exist; plaintiff identifies the opinion/quotation as fabricated.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Defendants cited Marx & Co. but relied on a proposition the case does not address; plaintiff notes the case exists but was misapplied.
• Tergiversación de jurisprudencia. Defendants cited Bausch & Lomb but attributed a proposition about expert testimony admissibility that the case does not support; plaintiff characterizes this as a misrepresentation.
• Citas falsas de jurisprudencia. Defendants cited Fortune Dynamic with a quoted passage not found in the opinion; plaintiff notes the case exists but the specific quoted language was not located in the decision.

Desenlace

Order to show cause. Sanción profesional: No.

Ficha del caso

Fuentes: aporte de /documents/1571/Valve_Corporation_v_Rothschild.pdf; base de datos de Damien Charlotin.

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