Eminence Growth Solutions, home

Search

Subscribe
Menu

Search

Subscribe

AI failures · Fabricated content

Kohls v. Ellison — Minnesota Federal Court Excludes Expert Declaration Containing AI-Hallucinated Citations

Verified Checked against its sources on 2 sources quoted

Where it happened
Minnesota, United States
Organization
Office of the Minnesota Attorney General (filing party); expert witness from Stanford University
Date
Declaration filed November 1, 2024; excluded by order of January 10, 2025
Function
Legal / expert testimony
Where it happened
Expert declaration drafting
System
GPT-4o
Technology
Generative AI
Type of failure
Fabricated content
Caught by
The opposing party, A court

Summary

In a First Amendment challenge to Minnesota's election deepfake law, the state Attorney General filed an expert declaration from a Stanford communication professor. The declaration cited two academic articles that do not exist and misattributed the authors of a third; the expert said the errors came from using GPT-4o while drafting and that he had not caught them. The plaintiffs moved to exclude the declaration. On January 10, 2025, the court refused to consider the expert's testimony for the preliminary-injunction motion and denied as moot the Attorney General's request to file a corrected version. No attorney was sanctioned.

Consequence

  • The court excluded the expert's declaration from consideration on the preliminary-injunction motion and denied as moot the request to file an amended declaration (order of January 10, 2025).

Who caught it The opposing party, A courtFound outside the organization

Analysis

What could have been done

Checking AI output against its sources

Every factual element of AI output (citations, figures, quotations) is checked against its source before reliance.

The expert declaration cited two academic articles that do not exist and misattributed the authors of a third; the expert said the errors came from using a generative AI tool while drafting and that he had not caught them.

Oversight of suppliers' AI use

Suppliers' use of AI is disclosed, contracted for and checked.

The filing party submitted an outside expert's AI-assisted declaration with these citation errors in it; the court excluded the testimony and denied as moot the request to file a corrected version.

What would likely have prevented it

  • Require outside experts and other contributors to state in writing whether AI tools were used in drafting, and to confirm that every reference in a sworn document has been checked against the cited work.
  • Have the instructing party independently check the reference list of an outside expert's declaration, confirming each cited work exists and has the stated authors, before it is filed.

What would likely have caught it earlier

  • Check an outside expert's references on receipt rather than at filing, so errors surface while a corrected version can still be relied on; here the request to file a corrected declaration was denied as moot when the testimony was excluded.

Related reading Treat AI Output Like an Unsupported Journal EntryMost Documented AI Failures Were Found by Someone Else

Key dates

  1. January 10, 2025Event
  2. October 16, 2026Checked against sources
  3. October 18, 2026Checked against sources
  4. October 21, 2026Checked against sources

Developments are added when the record is reviewed. Next review: October 16, 2027.

Evidence

Each passage is quoted from its source. The quoted passages are re-checked against the live pages every month.

  1. the Court will exclude consideration of Professor Hancock's expert testimony in deciding Plaintiffs' preliminary-injunction

    Supports: Ruling: expert testimony excluded; date January 10, 2025; court and parties

    Order granting in part and denying in part plaintiffs' motion to exclude expert testimony, Kohls v. Ellison, No. 24-cv-3754 (D. Minn.), ECF No. 46 U.S. District Court for the District of Minnesota (via CourtListener RECAP) Primary source

  2. The expert has since acknowledged and sought leave to correct three citation errors in his declaration, including two “hallucinations” to nonexistent studies.

    Supports: What happened: two non-existent studies and a third citation error; GPT-4o drafting; plaintiffs' motion to exclude

    AI Expert Challenged for Relying on AI "Hallucinations" Dechert LLP Reporting or analysis

Suggested citation. Eminence Scan, “Kohls v. Ellison — Minnesota Federal Court Excludes Expert Declaration Containing AI-Hallucinated Citations”, Eminence Growth Solutions, last verified October 16, 2026, https://eminencegrowthsolutions.com/tools/eminence-scan/record/fail-005/.

Using our research: you may read and quote Eminence Scan with credit to “Eminence Scan, Eminence Growth Solutions” and a link; all other rights reserved. Terms: Using our research.

Spotted an error, or a development we have missed? Report a correction. How we check records: research methodology.