The Court finds that Plaintiffs violated section 128.7(b) of the Code of Civil Procedure by submitting fabricated evidence in support of their motion for summary judgment. [...] The Court finds that exhibits 6A and 6C are products of GenAI and do not capture the actual speech and image of Geri Haas. In other words, these exhibits are deepfakes. [...] a terminating sanction serves the appropriate deterrent effect of showing the public that the Court has zero tolerance with attempting to pass deepfakes as evidence.
Every other fabrication case on this page is a citation: a judgment that does not exist, cited by somebody who did not check. This is the first reported one where the fabricated thing was EVIDENCE. Self-represented plaintiffs filed video exhibits presenting a witness giving testimony she never gave, and the court identified them itself: seven to ten seconds looping, a monotone voice over digitally moved lips, and Ring images with a pixelated grey background behind a subject in crisp colour. The judge compared them against real footage of the same person and found the accent, cadence, word choice and gestures were somebody else's. Decided 9 September 2025, dismissed with prejudice. What makes it consequential beyond the case is the second-order problem the courts now name the liar's dividend: once juries know this exists, real recordings can be denied.
