VERITAS
January 13, 2026 · AI sanctions database

Heiting v. I Am Beyond LLC

Heiting v. I Am Beyond LLC 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
SC California
Date
January 13, 2026
Party
Lawyer
AI tool
Not identified in the order
Outcome
No sanction; citation issue noted in ruling
Penalty
No monetary penalty in this order.
Warning

What the record shows

Granting summary judgment, the court noted that a passage Plaintiff's counsel attributed to Cline v. Reetz-Laiolo could not be found in the cited opinion, observing it was likely the briefing was influenced by AI hallucinations and that counsel did not check and correct the purported citations before filing. The court referenced appellate authority sanctioning attorneys for such hallucinations but imposed no sanction here.

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

Primary court document ↗

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 →

Filed under · AI sanctions database · SC California