AI Use Gets A Warning
An order of the Delaware Chancery Court in An v. Archblock Inc.
WHEREAS, the petitioner filed a motion to compel discovery (Dkt. 25; the “Motion”) that cites false legal authority and/or miscites legal authority;
WHEREAS, on April 4, 2025, this court issued a letter opinion explaining that the Motion was denied because the petitioner put forward false citations, presumably due to his use of generative artificial intelligence (“GenAI”) in preparing the Motion;
WHEREAS, for purposes of this Order, GenAI means models or tools that generate new content, including text, based upon machine learning from existing data. GenAI includes, but is not limited to, ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Microsoft Copilot, Meta AI, and Thomson Reuters CoCounsel.
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED this 4th day of April, 2025, that:
- The Motion is denied.
2. Any future court filings in this case by the petitioner that are prepared using GenAI must be accompanied by a certification, with a sworn statement by the petitioner, that:
a. Confirms GenAI was used to prepare the court filing;
b. Identifies the GenAI tool, model, or platform used;
c. Identifies the specific pages, paragraphs, and/or sections of the court filing that were created using GenAI; and
d. Confirms that any text in the court filing prepared using GenAI has undergone a human review for accuracy and completeness. This includes confirming that any citation to legal authority is accurate and that the authority stands for the cited proposition.
Failure to abide by this Order may lead to the issuance of sanctions.
From the court’s letter to the parties
The petitioner’s submission of a filing with fictitious citations is sanctionable. “[I]t is improper and unacceptable for litigants—including pro se litigants—to submit ‘non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations.’” At the same time, “Delaware judges traditionally (and naturally) treat self-represented individuals with some degree of latitude” so long as the party’s pro se status does not “impose[] on the party opponent in a material way.”
Mindful of these interests, I would have been inclined to deny the Motion without prejudice if the petitioner had been forthright. In his reply, however, the petitioner doubled down. He insists that though “some of the quoted language [in his cites] was paraphrased rather than verbatim, the principles from the cited cases are directly relevant and on point.” That is untrue, as I explained above. The Motion is therefore denied with prejudice.
The petitioner should consider himself warned. Although I am not sanctioning the petitioner today, he must ensure that every future filing satisfies his obligations to this court, including that the filing is truthful, accurate, and cites to legitimate authorities. Any future filing must also include the certification required by the order accompanying this letter opinion, which addresses the use of GenAI. The petitioner’s failure to comply with these requirements may result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, stricken filings, or the dismissal of this suit.
(Mike Frisch)