Mattox v. Product Innovation Research
Mattox v. Product Innovation Research 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. Oklahoma
- Date
- October 22, 2025
- Party
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- ChatGPT
- Outcome
- Pleadings struck; public reprimands; $6,000 in individual fines plus $23,495.90 joint-and-several fee award; remedial requirements
- Penalty
- $6,000 in monetary penalties.
What the record shows
Across eleven pleadings the court identified twenty-eight false or misleading citations (fourteen nonexistent cases and fourteen misquoted authorities), including Williams v. Borden, which the court found did not exist as cited. The drafting attorney admitted using ChatGPT and not verifying the citations. The court adopted a three-factor framework for AI-hallucination cases, struck the offending filings, publicly reprimanded counsel, and imposed individual Rule 11 fines of $3,000 (Howie), $2,000 (Scott), and $1,000 (Oliver), plus joint-and-several reimbursement of $23,495.90 in defense attorney's fees split between two firms.
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 →