What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Numerous cited decisions contained incorrect Prüfzeichen (wrong docket numbers) and were relied on by the complaint. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 13 Os 15/17f was cited for the concept of 'Kuriertätern', but the court found the cited decision did not contain that asserted content. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 13 Os 99/15f was cited regarding 'Alias Namen' of telephone calls, but the court found the decision did not support that assertion. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 13 Os 81/07x was cited for a so-called 'Verschleifungsverbot', which the court determined the decision did not establish as claimed. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Citation 14 Os 11/09p was cited for an 'umfassendes Geständnis' and the 'präventive Wirkung der Ersthaftierung', but the court found those content-attributions inaccurate.

Sanction teardown · OG, Austria · 2025-11-03

12 Os 124/25i

What happened

In OG, Austria, 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)

Numerous cited decisions contained incorrect Prüfzeichen (wrong docket numbers) and were relied on by the complaint.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Citation 13 Os 15/17f was cited for the concept of 'Kuriertätern', but the court found the cited decision did not contain that asserted content.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Citation 13 Os 99/15f was cited regarding 'Alias Namen' of telephone calls, but the court found the decision did not support that assertion.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Citation 13 Os 81/07x was cited for a so-called 'Verschleifungsverbot', which the court determined the decision did not establish as claimed.
Misrepresented (Case Law)

Citation 14 Os 11/09p was cited for an 'umfassendes Geständnis' and the 'präventive Wirkung der Ersthaftierung', but the court found those content-attributions inaccurate.

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

Not specified in source record.

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/981/12_Os_124_25i_Austria_3_November_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

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 checker Back 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 — $49 Sanctions-motion template