Attorney Advertisement Referred to in Mistaken and Fictitious Quotations Decision

In a fictitious quotations case, sometimes called “hallucinations,” an appellate court referred to attorneys’ advertisements:

These mistakes and fictitious quotations bear the hallmarks of the misuse of generative artificial intelligence…. The website of XXXX Law Firm, P.C., where [plaintiff’s] attorneys both practice, boasts of the firm’s extensive incorporation of artificial intelligence into all areas of its representation. See How XXXX Uses AI to Deliver Cutting-Edge Legal Solutions, XXXX.ai (Dec. 3, 2025), https://perma.cc/6UHF-ABK2.”

D’Ambrosio v. Meta Platforms Inc., __ Fed.4^th __, 2026 WL 1361951, at *8 (7^th Cir. May 15, 2026)(emphasis added).  Although the law firm’s name is included in the opinion, I have anonymized this post.

While not quoted in the judicial decision, the law firm’s web site states: “At XXXX.ai, we’re not just using AI—we’re mastering it to deliver results that traditional firms can’t match.”  How XXXX Uses AI to Deliver Cutting-Edge Legal Solutions (last visited May 16, 2026).

The court added:

Without making any broad judgments about the use of artificial intelligence for help in drafting briefs, however, regardless of how these particular errors came about, submission of a brief with numerous fictitious citations and quotations is a serious dereliction of counsel’s duty to serve as an officer of the court. Citing nonexistent case law or misrepresenting the holdings of a case is making a false statement to a court. It does not matter if generative AI told you so.

Id. (cleaned up, citations and quotations omitted).

The court wrote:  “In this appeal, we affirm dismissal of a litany of claims arising from a few social media posts about the plaintiff’s reportedly obnoxious behavior on dates and after a breakup. We also order plaintiff and his attorneys to show cause why they should not face sanctions for frivolously appealing the dismissal of his claims against the author of some of those posts (a woman he briefly dated) and her parents. Plaintiff failed to offer even colorable grounds for reversing the claims against those defendants. Moreover, his attorney submitted a brief with fictitious quotations, citations, and claims that should have been avoided with routine citechecking.”  Id.

The facts of the dispute turn on a Facebook group named “Are We Dating the Same Guy? | Chicago.”  It has around 100,000 members and it includes discussions of women’s experiences dating in the Chicago area.  Dismissal of claims under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act, the Doxing Act, and common law was affirmed.

Discussing an error in appellant’s brief. The Seventh Circuit wrote: “We see such sloppy work in briefs fairly often, and almost always let it pass without comment as we try to focus on the merits of appeals.” Id. at *8.  Here, however, the next sentence in the brief was deemed to be a misstatement and: “No citation followed that claim about what the Illinois courts have actually done. We were not surprised to find no cases supporting the proposition. In fact, we found, as of the date of the opening brief, only one Illinois court decision indexed on Westlaw or Lexis even citing this statute. To the extent that decision is relevant at all, it seems to suggest the opposite of what D’Ambrosio asserted.” Id.  The following paragraph of the brief “was worse.” Id.  More shortcomings followed. Id.

The Seventh Circuit wrote: “This is a relatively rare appeal in which sanctions appear to be appropriate.”  It entered a show cause order directing that cause be shown why sanctions should not be imposed.  It wrote:  “The clerk of court shall forward a copy of this opinion to the Attorney Registration and Disciplinary Commission of the Illinois Supreme Court for any action it deems appropriate. To be clear, however, regardless of how the Illinois authorities assess and respond to circumstances like these, this court expects members of our bar to exercise diligence to ensure the accuracy of all factual and legal representations in briefs and other filings. Briefs and other court submissions that include fictitious quotations—inaccuracies discoverable with elementary professional care—are unacceptable and unbecoming members of our bar.”  Id. at *13.