bbieron@platformeconomyinsights.com

Anthropic Lawyers Admit Filing a Brief with a Hallucinated Case Citation

May 5, 2025

Report from Reuters

In Brief – Lawyers for the AI company Anthropic submitted a court filing that included a citation “hallucination” created by the company’s AI chatbot Clause. The filing was part of expert testimony from one of the company’s data scientists in a copyright lawsuit brought by a group of music publishers that claims Anthropic illegally trained its chatbot on copyrighted music lyrics without authorization or permission. A lawyer representing Universal Music Group told US Magistrate Judge Susan van Keulen that the data scientist’s filing cited a nonexistent academic article to bolster the company’s argument in a dispute over evidence. When the error was pointed out, lawyers for the AI company agreed that the filing included mistakes in the citation but said that the article cited in the filing was real, that the content of the article said what the filing said it said, and that the link to the paper was correct. However, the lawyers believe that when the Anthropic chatbot was asked to properly format all the citations for the filing, it apparently created a made-up name for that paper, and attributed new authors to it as well.

Context – Questions around the legality of “training” the neural networks of major generative AI models like Claude with non-licensed copyrighted material is the biggest legal issue surrounding AI. In the US, copyright lawsuits are taking center stage and judges will determine how to apply the fair use doctrine. It’s a complex legal question and both sides have strong arguments. In one of the big cases, involving image generating services, the judge has said he wants to determine how the GAI systems work to ascertain whether they store and retrieve some form of copies, or whether they create new things. To that key question, the fact that all generative AI systems sometimes create realistic-seeming fabrications is telling. The developers themselves are not sure how they work. And hallucinations, which limit the utility of the AI services in many business fields where accuracy really matters because all outputs need to be checked, are a clear case in point. If the developers knew why the systems sometimes simply make stuff up and pass it off like all the other outputs, they would solve the problem.

View By Monthly
Latest Blog
EU Commission Has Plan to Tax Tech Giants by Taxing Giant Companies

Report from the Financial Times In Brief – The European Commission is examining a plan to impose a big annual lump-sum levy on the largest, most profitable companies operating in Europe as a way to tax the US-based tech giants without imposing a direct tax on just...

Clearview AI’s Privacy Law Battle with the UK ICO Continues

Report from PPC Land In Brief – Clearview AI, the small US company that built a facial recognition database using images collected online, argued to the Court of Appeal in London that the UK Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) lacks authority to enforce data...

Australian Government Introduces Its Digital Duty of Care Legislation

Report from the Digital Watch In Brief – Australia’s Online Safety Amendment (Digital Duty of Care) Bill 2026 has been introduced in the House of Representatives by the Albanese Government. The bill proposes requiring digital services to maintain a safe environment,...

Platform Economy Insights produces a short email four times a week that reviews two top stories with concise analysis. It is the best way to keep on top of the news you should know. Sign up for this free email here.

* indicates required