Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was אדיבי נ' איי אי ג'י ישראל חברה לביטוח בע"מ on the other side of your case?

Check their next brief before they file — Opposition Check verifies every citation in a filed brief for $49, no signup. Get Opposition Check →

אדיבי נ' איי אי ג'י ישראל חברה לביטוח בע"מ

Court
Tel Aviv District Court
Jurisdiction
Israel
Decided
2026-08-23
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Court found the filings relied on AI-generated fabricated case citations, admonished counsel, and ordered the plaintiff to pay respondent's costs of 20,000 ILS; warned about uncontrolled use of AI and the risk of future personal costs.
Monetary penalty
1

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited this purported appellate decision in the response; the court found no record of such a decision and treated it as a fabricated AI-generated citation. || Fabricated: Case Law | Plaintiff's counsel cited this alleged district/civil case; the court found no supporting reference and concluded it was not a real precedent. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel relied on this supposed appellate ruling to support a principle of non-monetary consumer harm; the court found no such case in the records. || Fabricated: Case Law | This municipal/civil claim citation was presented as recognizing systematic non-monetary consumer harm; the court found no trace of the decision and deemed it fabricated. || Fabricated: Case Law | Counsel referred to this purported Haifa district decision as evidencing systemic failure; the court found no record and classified it as a non-existent citation.

Details

The court determined that the plaintiff's counsel relied on 'AI hallucinations' — citations presented as judicial precedents that do not exist. The judge reviewed the referenced authorities, found no record of the cited decisions, characterized the reliance as misleading and possibly produced by AI, and sanctioned the plaintiff by ordering costs of 20,000 ILS while issuing a formal warning about uncritical use of AI in pleadings.

Sanction teardown · Tel Aviv District Court, Israel · 2026-08-23

אדיבי נ' איי אי ג'י ישראל חברה לביטוח בע"מ

What happened

In Tel Aviv District Court, Israel, a filing relied on an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool to help draft legal argument. The court identified the following problems with the citations in that filing:

  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Plaintiff's counsel cited this purported appellate decision in the response; the court found no record of such a decision and treated it as a fabricated AI-generated citation.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Plaintiff's counsel cited this alleged district/civil case; the court found no supporting reference and concluded it was not a real precedent.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Counsel relied on this supposed appellate ruling to support a principle of non-monetary consumer harm; the court found no such case in the records.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    This municipal/civil claim citation was presented as recognizing systematic non-monetary consumer harm; the court found no trace of the decision and deemed it fabricated.
  • Fabricated (Case Law)
    Counsel referred to this purported Haifa district decision as evidencing systemic failure; the court found no record and classified it as a non-existent citation.

Which AI tool

an unnamed/unconfirmed AI tool. Note: Charlotin's public database records tool attribution only where a court order, brief, or reporting on the matter states it explicitly; "unidentified" or "implied" means the record indicates AI use but does not name a specific product — we do not guess.

Outcome

Court found the filings relied on AI-generated fabricated case citations, admonished counsel, and ordered the plaintiff to pay respondent's costs of 20,000 ILS; warned about uncontrolled use of AI and the risk of future personal costs. (monetary penalty: 1 .)

Additional detail

The court determined that the plaintiff's counsel relied on 'AI hallucinations' — citations presented as judicial precedents that do not exist. The judge reviewed the referenced authorities, found no record of the cited decisions, characterized the reliance as misleading and possibly produced by AI, and sanctioned the plaintiff by ordering costs of 20,000 ILS while issuing a formal warning about uncritical use of AI in pleadings.

How Citation Safe would have caught this

Citation Safe runs three deterministic layers before a brief is filed: (1) does the citation exist against CourtListener's database of published opinions, (2) if quoted, does that exact language appear in the source, (3) does the cited case actually support the proposition it is cited for. Fabricated case citations fail Layer 1. Fabricated or misattributed quotations fail Layer 2 even when the underlying case is real. Misrepresented holdings — a real case cited for a proposition it does not support — are the target of Layer 3. None of these checks involve asking another language model whether the citation looks right; they are lookups and text-matches against the actual source, which is why a hallucinated citation has to survive a direct lookup against the authoritative source — not another model's opinion — to earn a VERIFIED stamp; our measured false-verify rate is published live at /quality.

Check a brief before you file it → · See our live false-verify rate

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2957/adiby1.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/2957/adiby1.pdf

Don’t be the next case in this database.

Citation Safe checks every citation against primary sources before it reaches a filing.

Try the free checkerBack to database

On the opposing side of their next motion?

Check their next brief through the same engine that would have caught this filing — $49, no signup, full annotated report you can attach to your Rule 11 or sanctions motion.

Open Opposition Check — $49Sanctions-motion template