N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd. et al. (OnlyFans)
N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd. et al. (OnlyFans) 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
- C.D. California
- Date
- September 12, 2025
- Party
- Lawyer
- AI tool
- ChatGPT
- Outcome
- Monetary penalty: $13,000 total to the court; bar referral; remedial requirements
- Penalty
- $13,000 in monetary penalties.
What the record shows
The court found that opposition briefs prepared with ChatGPT contained four categories of errors, including hallucinated authority and incorrect quotations or parentheticals, after co-counsel Boyd used ChatGPT to draft large portions without verifying the output and the signing firm did not cite-check her work. Under Rule 11 the court denied leave to file corrective briefs and ordered Carey and Hagens Berman to jointly and severally pay the court $10,000 and Boyd to pay $3,000 within seven days, for a total of $13,000, plus client notice, a status report, and a directive serving the order on the California and Arizona state bars.
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 →