Bey v. Apple Inc.
U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Tampa Division · M.D. Fla. · Florida bar guidance
Conduct
Here a pro se plaintiff's response to a motion to dismiss cited a case the court called non-existent and misstated the holdings of several others.
Consequence
Here the court dismissed the complaint without prejudice on pleading grounds and warned that further AI use producing hallucinated authority will result in sanctions.
Lesson
Here the court noted the plaintiff's failure to deny AI use, once the opponent raised it, in the same order that warned him.
Verified September 29, 2026
- Citation
- Bey v. Apple Inc., No. 8:25-cv-1209-SDM-SPF, Order (M.D. Fla. Nov. 12, 2025), ECF No. 39
- Decided
- November 12, 2025
Summary
Ali Taj Bey, proceeding pro se, sued Apple Inc. over alleged Siri recordings, and Apple moved to dismiss. Apple's reply noted that Bey "either used artificial intelligence or fabricated case law in his response" to the motion. According to the court, Bey answered by requesting sanctions against Apple "but fails to deny using artificial intelligence or fabricating authority." The court found that Bey's response cited "Halvorsen v. Dollinger, 471 So. 2d 32, 24 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985)," which it called "a non-existent case," and that Bey "misstates the holding of several cases." An earlier order had denied Bey's motion for sanctions against Apple.
- AI tool:
- Unidentified (Apple's reply said Bey "either used artificial intelligence or fabricated case law"; the court noted Bey did not deny it and warned against "[f]urther use of artificial intelligence resulting in hallucinated authority"; no tool is named)
What did the court warn about?
The court granted Apple's motion to dismiss on pleading grounds, dismissing the complaint without prejudice with leave to amend by November 26, 2025. It warned: "Further use of artificial intelligence resulting in hallucinated authority or fabrication will result in sanction, monetary or otherwise." In a closing caution, it strongly advised Bey to obtain legal advice from a member of The Florida Bar. No sanction was imposed.
Why does Bey v. Apple Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Bey v. Apple is a motion to dismiss order in which the AI issue was raised by the defendant. Apple’s reply said the pro se plaintiff had either used artificial intelligence or fabricated case law in his response. The plaintiff answered by seeking sanctions against Apple, and the court observed that he did not deny using AI or fabricating authority.
The court identified one nonexistent case in the response, a citation styled as a Florida Second District decision, and said the plaintiff misstated the holdings of several others. It dismissed the complaint without prejudice on pleading grounds and added a direct warning: further use of AI resulting in hallucinated authority or fabrication “will result in sanction, monetary or otherwise.” The order closes with a caution to the plaintiff, advising the plaintiff to seek help from a member of The Florida Bar.
Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider that, here, the AI question reached the court through the opposing party’s reply, and the court noted how the plaintiff responded to that accusation in the same order that warned him.
Implications for your firm
Operational steps a firm reading this case may wish to consider documenting. Strategic and rule-application calls belong to your firm's attorneys.
- Respond directly when an opponent says a filing relied on AI or fabricated authority. Here the court noted that the plaintiff did not deny it and sought sanctions against the opponent instead.
- Check the opponent's cited authority in pro se matters and raise nonexistent cases in the reply. Here the defendant's reply raised the issue and the court relied on it.
Sources
Primary sources
- AI attribution: the order makes no finding that Bey used AI. It records Apple's assertion that he used AI or fabricated case law and that he did not deny it, and it warns against further AI use resulting in hallucinated authority.