EFD USA, Inc. v. Band Pro Film and Digital Inc.
The case
EFD USA, Inc. v. Band Pro Film and Digital Inc., B329314 (Cal. Ct. App., 2d Dist., Div. 3), opinion filed February 18, 2026, 2026 WL 457265. Copy of primary document: `~/workspace/goals/ai-sanctions-case-monitoring/files/sources/D-128-efd-v-band-pro.pdf`. Source URL: https://www.damiencharlotin.com/documents/1552/EFD_USA_v_BAND_PRO_FILM_AND_DIGITAL_IN_USA_18_February_2026.pdf
What happened
Attorney David E. Azar asked an AI "consultant" to use AI to prepare a draft opening brief, then used an unidentified "AI system" to shorten the draft while directing it to keep all citations. He did not have the brief cite-checked a second time after the AI edits. The opening brief contained several fabricated quotations (including purported quotes from Lilienthal, Riverisland, and Leaf that do not appear in those cases), and the reply brief contained at least two more fabricated quotations after AI shortening. Azar accepted responsibility.
The rule and the sanction
The court held Azar violated the duty to cite real authority under California Rules of Court, rule 8.204(a)(1)(B), and imposed a $900 sanction against Azar alone, payable to the clerk of the court within 30 days after the remittitur is filed. The court noted the errors were caused primarily by Azar's failure to safeguard against AI hallucinations.
How it could have been avoided
(a) Never run a brief through AI for editing or shortening without a full cite-check afterward; the second AI pass introduced the errors here. (b) The consultant's warning to double-check citations should have been treated as mandatory, not advisory. (c) Receiving a brief back three hours before the deadline is not an excuse for co-signing it without verification.