Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations (1)
Bunce v. Visual Technology Innovations (1) is one matter in the Veritas record of US court proceedings involving AI-generated citations that could not be verified against the reporters named. The summary below is drawn from the underlying court document, linked at the foot of this page.
- Court
- E.D. Pennsylvania
- Date
- February 27, 2025
- Party
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- ChatGPT
- Outcome
- Monetary sanction: $2,500 penalty plus one-hour AI CLE under Rule 11
- Penalty
- $2,500 in monetary penalties.
What the record shows
The court found that Mr. Rajan used ChatGPT to cite non-existent cases in two separate motions and also relied on overruled and inapposite authority, violating Rule 11(b)(2). The court imposed two sanctions: a $2,500 penalty payable into court and completion of a one-hour CLE-credited course on AI in legal practice.
This entry reflects the court document as filed. The citations at issue could not be located in the reporters named at the time of the order. The reading here is descriptive of the public record and is not legal advice.
Source documents
The test this filing did not run
Every matter in this record shares one mechanism: a citation that did not resolve to an opinion in the reporter named, in a brief that was filed before any verification step ran. Veritas runs that step. The Filing Risk Scanner extracts each citation, resolves it against reporter and public-record sources, and returns a verdict on each one — located, partial, or not located in reporter — before the brief is signed.
Run a free reviewBack to the full tracker →