Skip to main content
Citation Safe

Was Auto Test Ltd. 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 →

Auto Test Ltd. v. Ministry of Transport

Court
Tel Aviv-Yafo District Court
Jurisdiction
Israel
Decided
2025-06-25
AI tool
Implied
Outcome
Motion for Costs denied
Monetary penalty
None reported

What was hallucinated

Fabricated: Case Law | Petition and supplemental filing included many fabricated (non-existent) court decisions due to counsel's AI use; court noted Supreme Court precedent would justify dismissal. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Petition and supplemental filing contained numerous incorrect case citations (wrong decisions) linked to AI use; court deemed this improper and denied petitioner costs.

Details

"Regarding the petitioner, this is a case of improper conduct, to say the least, on the part of its counsel (who apologized for it), who made use of artificial intelligence in the petition and in the supplementary argument, in which many non-existent and/or erroneous judgments were inserted and embedded. In accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, there would have been grounds, as a result, for dismissing the petition outright, but I did not do so due to the conduct of the state, as detailed above, and due to the importance of publishing the tender. However, in this case, there is no place to award costs in favor of the petitioner, due to this improper conduct (as, beyond that, the petition also requested many remedies, some of which are not within the jurisdiction of this court)."(Translation by Gemini 2.5.)

Sanction teardown · Tel Aviv-Yafo District Court, Israel · 2025-06-25

Auto Test Ltd. v. Ministry of Transport

What happened

In Tel Aviv-Yafo 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)
    Petition and supplemental filing included many fabricated (non-existent) court decisions due to counsel's AI use; court noted Supreme Court precedent would justify dismissal.
  • Misrepresented (Case Law)
    Petition and supplemental filing contained numerous incorrect case citations (wrong decisions) linked to AI use; court deemed this improper and denied petitioner costs.

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

Motion for Costs denied

Additional detail

"Regarding the petitioner, this is a case of improper conduct, to say the least, on the part of its counsel (who apologized for it), who made use of artificial intelligence in the petition and in the supplementary argument, in which many non-existent and/or erroneous judgments were inserted and embedded. In accordance with the Supreme Court's ruling, there would have been grounds, as a result, for dismissing the petition outright, but I did not do so due to the conduct of the state, as detailed above, and due to the importance of publishing the tender. However, in this case, there is no place to award costs in favor of the petitioner, due to this improper conduct (as, beyond that, the petition also requested many remedies, some of which are not within the jurisdiction of this court)."(Translation by Gemini 2.5.)

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/529/Auto_Test_v._Ministry_of_Transport_Israel_25_June_2025.pdf, via Damien Charlotin's public AI Hallucination Cases Database (CC0).

Source: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/529/Auto_Test_v._Ministry_of_Transport_Israel_25_June_2025.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