The cases / Legal
Mata v. Avianca: lawyers filed six ChatGPT-invented court opinions
Sanctions order; the brief was filed March 1, 2023.
What the AI said
Judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations, including 'Varghese v. China Southern Airlines Co., Ltd., 925 F.3d 1339 (11th Cir.)'.
What was actually true
The opinions don't exist. The court found the lawyers kept standing by them after its orders questioned whether they existed.
Cost or impact
$5,000 penalty imposed jointly and severally on the two lawyers and their firm, plus required letters to the client and to the judges falsely named as authors.
Who caught it
Avianca's counsel, who questioned the cases in a March 15, 2023 brief, and Judge P. Kevin Castel.
Check that would have caught it Our analysis
source citation. Pull every case from Westlaw or Lexis before filing. ChatGPT 'finding it somewhere' is not a source.
This is our judgment, not something the sources say. How we assign it.
Sources
- ctd.uscourts.govhttps://www.ctd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/Mata-v.-Avianca.pdf
- nhd.uscourts.govhttps://www.nhd.uscourts.gov/sites/default/files/pdf/Mata-v-Avianca-sanctions-order.PDF
Links last checked Oct 24, 2026. If something here is wrong, send a correction.