Trackers · Living reference
AI Incident & Failure Tracker
What actually went wrong — documented production AI failures, liability rulings, and court sanctions, each with a primary source. The reference for anyone writing an AI policy who needs precedent, not vibes. Updated as cases land.
Last updated 2026-06-20 · 3 incidents
| Date | Subject | What happened | AI involved | Type | Source |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Oct 2025 | California attorney (Mostafavi) | Fined $10,000 — the largest California AI-fabrication penalty to date — after 21 of 23 case quotes in an appellate brief turned out to be fabricated by ChatGPT. | OpenAI — ChatGPT | Court sanction | The Daily Recordthedailyrecord.com |
| Feb 2024 | Air Canada | Held liable for negligent misrepresentation by its support chatbot (Moffatt v. Air Canada); the tribunal rejected the airline’s claim that the chatbot was a "separate legal entity". | In-house support chatbot | Liability ruling | American Bar Associationamericanbar.org |
| Jun 2023 | Mata v. Avianca (two NY attorneys) | The landmark case: lawyers sanctioned after submitting a brief full of non-existent cases hallucinated by ChatGPT — the first widely-cited AI legal-citation failure. | OpenAI — ChatGPT | Court sanction | Seyfarth Shawseyfarth.com |
How this is compiled
- Documented incidents only. Each row cites court/tribunal coverage, law-firm analysis, or Tier-1 reporting — not rumor or speculation.
- Practitioner focus. We track the failures that set precedent for enterprise AI policy: who was held liable, who was sanctioned, and why.
- Know an incident we’re missing? Tell us.
Informational only · not legal advice