The Charlotin database of AI hallucination cases, and what it counts
A public database maintained by Damien Charlotin since April 2025 that tracks judicial decisions in which a court or tribunal addressed reliance on hallucinated AI content in more than passing reference. It recorded 1,809 cases as of late July 2026 and is updated daily. It counts incidents globally by court decision; it does not claim to capture every fabricated citation, and it does not verify against primary Indian records or annotate the standard that was breached, which is what the Register on this site does.
When this decides something for you
A reader who wants to know how often fabricated authority reaches a court, or a speaker who wants a number, needs a count whose method is stated. This is the one the author's published work uses, with the access date attached, because the number moves daily and a stale figure is the first thing a careful reader checks.
What the database is
A public, searchable database maintained by Damien Charlotin, begun in April 2025, that records judicial decisions in which a court or tribunal addressed a party's or a court's reliance on hallucinated AI content: fabricated authorities, invented quotations, misattributed holdings. The unit is the decision that addresses the incident, not the filing that contained it. The database is updated daily and is accompanied by a companion database on AI-generated evidence.
What it counted, and when
As of late July 2026 the database recorded 1,809 cases. The author's earlier working figures of roughly 380 in October 2025 and 684 in December 2025 show the rate of growth over nine months; the conference paper states that the database "passed 1,800 entries in mid-2026, and the curve is steepening". Any page that uses the count cites the number with the date it was read, and never reuses an earlier trajectory as if current.
What it does not count
Fabrications that no court addressed: filings withdrawn, corrected, or never challenged. Decisions that mention the problem only in passing. Incidents in courts whose decisions are not published or not in a language the database's sources cover. The database itself says it does not claim to capture all fake citations. It is therefore a floor, and a floor that rises as courts become more willing to record what they find.
How it relates to the Register
The Register of AI-Fabricated Authority in Indian Proceedings, maintained on this site, does something different and complementary. It records Indian incidents only; each entry is verified against the court's own order, with case number, date, paragraph and an archived copy; and each entry annotates the standard that was breached and the response the court gave. Charlotin counts incidents globally by decision; the Register verifies and classifies Indian ones. The author's published work cites both, for their different purposes, and the Register cites him.
Where it stands in the record
The July 2026 count is from the author's verified material; a snapshot of the database page was archived on 4 August 2026 and a CSV export on 20 September 2026. A current count is taken from the live site on the day any page states one.
Provenance and method.
Where this was published
- Damien Charlotin
- AI Hallucination Cases database (snapshot archived 4 August 2026
- I1
- and a CSV export archived 20 September 2026
- per the author's ledgers)
Changelog
- 2026-09-25, version 1. First published.