Enforcement action · California Supreme Court
Schlichter v. Kennedy
Schlichter v. Kennedy is an AI-related enforcement action involving California Supreme Court. A California Supreme Court case, Schlichter v. Kennedy, notes that citations appear to have been fabricated by artificial intelligence, referring to these as AI “hallucinations.”
Action details
- Agency
- California Supreme Court
- Jurisdiction
- CA
- Document type
- court opinion
- AI risk category
- high
- Topic
- ai liability
Summary
In the case of Schlichter v. Kennedy, the California Supreme Court noted that citations presented in the case appeared to be fabricated by artificial intelligence. This highlights a critical issue of AI's propensity for "hallucinations" and underscores the need for stringent verification of AI-generated content, particularly in legal and professional contexts where accuracy is paramount. This statement serves as a warning about the reliability risks of using AI without human oversight.
Primary source
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10737604/schlichter-v-kennedy/ →Related California Supreme Court actions
- Governor Hochul Signs Legislation Expanding Historic Empire AI Consortium and Establishing Nation-Leading AI Protections for Responsible Growth as Part of the FY 2026 Budget press release 5/9/2025
- Grant Bauserman v. Unemployment Insurance Agency court opinion 7/26/2022
- AG Campbell Reaches $7 Million Multistate Settlement with Nation's Largest Landlord for Anticompetitive Algorithmic Pricing Scheme that Harms Renters enforcement action 11/19/2025
- City of Boston, on behalf of Boston Public Schools, v. Meta and other social media companies agency report 7/8/2026
- [ESMA] The ESAs support ESRB warning on systemic cyber risks from frontier AI models press release
Frequently asked questions
- What is Schlichter v. Kennedy?
- In the case of Schlichter v. Kennedy, the California Supreme Court noted that citations presented in the case appeared to be fabricated by artificial intelligence. This highlights a critical issue of AI's propensity for "hallucinations" and underscores the need for stringent verification of AI-generated content, particularly in legal and professional contexts where accuracy is paramount. This statement serves as a warning about the reliability risks of using AI without human oversight. Primary source →
- Which agency brought the action?
- California Supreme Court brought this enforcement action in CA. Primary source →
- What was the penalty?
- No specific penalty amount is disclosed in the primary source AIGI tracked for this action. Some enforcement actions resolve through injunctive relief, consent decrees, or behavioural undertakings rather than monetary penalty. Primary source →
- When did the action take effect?
- The most recent activity on this action was published on 11/17/2025. Primary source →
- Where can I find the primary source?
- The primary source for Schlichter v. Kennedy is at https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/10737604/schlichter-v-kennedy/. AIGI does not paraphrase secondary commentary — every claim on this page links back to that primary source. Primary source →
Related
Stay informed