Mata v. Avianca, Inc.
Response class R5, Denied or Doubled Down
The case
Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 678 F. Supp. 3d 443 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023), the first widely reported AI-hallucination sanctions decision. Copy of opinion: https://www.law.berkeley.edu/wp-content/uploads/archive/2025/12/Mata-v-Avianca-Inc.pdf
What happened
Two lawyers (Peter LoDuca and Steven Schwartz of Levidow, Levidow & Oberman) used ChatGPT to draft an opposition brief containing citations to six or more nonexistent cases, with fabricated quotes and holdings. After opposing counsel and the court flagged that the authorities could not be found, the lawyers doubled down and submitted a further affirmation standing by the fake opinions rather than verifying them.
The rule and the sanction
The court held that Rule 11's gatekeeping duty and the duties of candor, diligence, and competence apply regardless of the technology used; AI does not excuse false submissions. Joint and several $5,000 sanction; the lawyers were required to notify their client and to send copies of the opinion to every judge falsely identified as the author of a fabricated opinion.
How the lawyer responded
R5, Denied or Doubled Down (per lawyer: LoDuca R5, Schwartz R5; the firm, Levidow, Levidow & Oberman, R3 secondary. No withdrawal after Avianca's March 15 flag or the April 11 and 12 Orders; the April 25 Affidavit annexed purported copies of the fake decisions; the court found a knowingly false vacation statement by LoDuca and an "untruthful assertion" about ChatGPT use by Schwartz; first acknowledgment of ChatGPT on May 25, after the May 4 Order to Show Cause; remorse credited at the June 8 hearing).
How it could have been avoided
Before filing, pull and read every cited authority in full in a traditional database (Westlaw/Lexis), never rely on an AI tool's representations about what a case says. When an error is flagged, immediately withdraw or correct the filing and disclose the source of the error to the court; doubling down converts a correctable mistake into sanctionable misconduct. Treat any case you have not personally read as unverified.