Using AI to do your legal research is playing with fire - a cautionary tale

Please keep in mind that I don't post this to make fun of anyone. The telephone consumer protection act was written and intended for ordinary citizens to enforce the law, yet it was poorly written and rarely updated. Telemarketing law intersects constitutional rights and is heavily influenced by common law, so it one of the hardest areas for ordinary people to litigate. Some telemarketers hire dummies for attorneys, but often telemarketers put partners of large law firms as their primary counsel.

So it makes total sense that people make poor arguments in court, and one of the points of this blog is to help ordinary people push back against telemarketers with information and examples. In this example, I am not even going to cite the plaintiff so that search engines don't pick it up. This Order is dated July 14, 2025, in case # 2:25-cv-03232-EP-CLW from the United States District Court, District of New Jersey.

A little history - TCPA plaintiff John Doe sued defendant Wonder Group Inc. in state court. Wonder then removed it to federal court and moved to dismiss. Doe then filed a Response to the motion, and Wonder replied. Ripe for a ruling, the court then ordered:

Pro se Plaintiff John Doe alleges that Defendant Wonder Group Inc. (“Defendant”) sent Plaintiff two unsolicited text messages in violation of the Telephone Consumer Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. § 227 et seg. (“TCPA”) and multiple New Jersey laws. D.E. 1 (“Complaint”). In response, Defendant filed a motion to dismiss! the Complaint as well as a motion for sanctions,” arguing that Plaintiff fails to state a claim, that his allegations are frivolous, and that he has filed numerous similar frivolous lawsuits against various entities.

The Court reviewed the parties’ briefs. There are several quotations, citations, and cases in Plaintiff’s opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss that, after an extensive review, the Court cannot find. [you never want the judge to say this about your work] In some instances, Plaintiff quotes language in cases, but the Court cannot find those quotations. For example, Plaintiff quotes Safe-Strap Co., Inc. v. Koala Corp., 270 F. Supp. 2d 407, 413 (S.D.N.Y. 2003) as stating that “[a] party cannot invoke Rule 11 sanctions where its own allegations remain unsupported by evidentiary proof.” However, the Court cannot find this quotation within the cited authority. Other similar examples from Plaintiff’s Opposition include the following:

1. Plaintiff quotes Campbell-Ewald Co. v. Gomez, 577 U.S. 153 (2016) as stating that “TCPA restrictions apply to all entities engaging in unsolicited communications, without exception.” The Court cannot find this quotation within the quoted authority.
   

2. Plaintiff quotes Van Patten v. Vertical Fitness Group, LLC, 847 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2017) as stating that “[v]erification messages fall under TCPA regulations when sent without prior express consent.” Again, the Court cannot find this quotation. In fact, Van Patten makes zero mention of verification messages.
   

3. Plaintiff quotes Satterfield v. Simon & Schuster, Inc., 569 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018) as Stating that “[e]xpress consent under the TCPA must be established through clear

   and demonstrable evidence, not merely assumed or asserted.” This quotation also does not exist. The word “demonstrable” does not even appear in the opinion.
   

4. Plaintiff quotes Marks v. Crunch San Diego, LLC, 904 F.3d 1041 (9th Cir. 2018) as stating that “the determining factor for [automatic telephone dialing system] is the technology used to send the messages, not how the sender describes them.” This quotation also could not be found within the quoted authority.

In addition to the above, Plaintiff cites to cases that the Court cannot find at all, including: (1) Monteglongo v. Abrea, No. B297682, 2021 Cal. App. LEXIS 164 (Cal. Ct. App. 2021); and (2) Nat'l Union Fire Ins. Co. v. Midwest Express Airlines, Inc., 2002 WL 32357183 (D. Kan. 2002). The case number cited by Plaintiff for Montelongo (B297682) leads to an entirely different case. For National Union, the Westlaw identifier (2002 WL 32357183) provides no results on Westlaw; moreover, the Court cannot otherwise locate the case by its name, and a search for the quote Plaintiff attributes to the case in his Opposition results in zero hits on Westlaw as well. Before the Court addresses the merits of Defendant’s motions, the Court will order Plaintiff to explain the above discrepancies. Accordingly,

IT IS, on this 14th day of July 2025, for the reasons set forth above, ORDERED that Plaintiff shall file on the docket, within 30 days of this Order, the following:

1. For quotations included in Plaintiff’s Opposition: Plaintiff shall provide the Court with a PDF electronic copy of every case he quotes and highlight where the quotation is located within the cited authority;
   

2. For cases that Plaintiff cites to but does not quote: Plaintiff shall provide the Court with a PDF electronic copy of every case he cites, and in those copies, highlight the sentences within the opinion that support the proposition he cites the cases for;
   

3. Furthermore, while assembling the above information, for any cases or quotations that Plaintiff cannot provide, he shall indicate so in a letter to the Court and explain where he originally found the quotations and cases he used in his Opposition; and
   

4. Plaintiff shall disclose in a letter to the Court whether he used generative artificial intelligence in drafting his filings, and if so, to what extent.

This probably is an example of a TCPA plaintiff using AI to write his brief, the AI created the fabrications and fake cases, and the TCPA plaintiff ate it up. AI or no, this is likely going to go poorly for the pro-se TCPA plaintiff. When the pro-se TCPA plaintiff can't produce the non-existent cases and can't highlight the fabricated quotes, the judge is likely to grant the motion to dismiss and order the pro-se TCPA plaintiff to explain why he should not be sanctioned.

Some sort of sanctions are almost certainly coming. On the very lowest end is just a verbal spanking another pro-se plaintiff received in Thomas v. Genesee County Sheriff's Dep't, No. 25-cv-10524, slip op. at 1 (E.D. Mich. Apr. 15, 2025), but other parties in similar positions have been hit with $1,000 in Ramirez v. Humala, No. 24-cv-242, 2025 WL 1384161, at *1 (E.D.N.Y. May 13, 2025) $2,500 in Rochon-Eidsvig, No. 05-00123-CV, slip op. at 2 (Tex. Ct. App. June 12, 2025) to $5,000 in Nextpulse, LLC v. Life Fitness, LLC, No. 22-cv-03239, slip op. at 1 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 7, 2025 to $6,000 in Mid Cent. Operating Eng’rs Health & Welfare Fund v. HoosierVac LLC, No. 2:24-cv-00326, 2025 WL 574234, at *3 (S.D. Ind. Feb. 21, 2025) to $13,381 in Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters. LLC, No. 17-cv-81140, 2025 WL 1440351, at *1 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)

In reviewing similar cases where the party escaped with a tongue lashing but little financial penalty, typically they were pro-se parties, the party fessed up immediately, did what they could to show the court the errors were not in bad faith, and promised the court they would not do it again. This article covers many 2025 cases in greater detail.

The UIC Law article shows courts are dealing with a tidal wave of fake case citations. It appears that more courts seem to take the approach that there is so much, they don't want to hit all the offenders with large penalties, but some courts are hitting offenders with five figure sanctions and case dismissals. Like many things, the more courts get tired of it, they probably will up the penalties to send a message.

TCPA plaintiffs should find and read every case they cite. It is hard to go wrong with a "if you didn't read it, don't cite it" approach. Further, don't just cite nice sounding holdings if the facts underlying your case and that case don't match up. Second, read every case your TCPA defendant cites. There is a small chance you catch them faking cases, but a bigger chance you can show how their cases support your position.

Are telemarketers bothering you in Washington or Oregon? I handle TCPA lawsuits in both states and may be able to help. If you're considering action against illegal robocalls or Do Not Call list violations, reach out for a legal consultation.

📞 Call: 206-800-6000 / 971-800-6000

📧 Email: peter@nwdebtresolution.com 

Note: The opinions in this blog belong to me (Peter Schneider) and do not count as legal advice. If you’re considering suing over illegal robocalls or Do Not Call violations, please contact me for a legal consultation.

Return to blog articles