Biglow v. Dell Technologies, Inc.
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit · 10th Cir. · Colorado bar guidance , Kansas bar guidance , New Mexico bar guidance , Oklahoma bar guidance , Utah bar guidance , Wyoming bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se appellant filed FAA Section 10 appellate briefing with fabricated case citations the court attributed to unverified ChatGPT use.
Consequence
District court order affirmed on the merits. Stand-alone warning issued. No monetary sanction.
Lesson
Tenth Circuit panels are now warning rather than dismissing for AI hallucinations, but signaling FRAP 38 next time.
Verified May 8, 2026
- Citation
- Biglow v. Dell Techs., Inc., No. 25-3007 (10th Cir. Mar. 24, 2026) (Carson, Baldock, Kelly, JJ., op. by Baldock, J.)
- Decided
- March 24, 2026
Summary
Pro se plaintiff Biglow appealed the district court's order compelling arbitration and denying his motion to vacate the arbitration award under the Federal Arbitration Act, Section 10. The Tenth Circuit panel (Carson, Baldock, Kelly) affirmed on the merits and separately found that Biglow's appellate briefing contained fabricated case citations and misrepresentations of authority that the court attributed to unverified use of generative AI. The court issued a stand-alone warning rather than dismissing the appeal as sanction, but flagged the use of AI without verification as conduct that risked Rule 38 consequences in future filings.
- AI tool:
- ChatGPT (named in opinion as an example of generative AI)
What sanction did the court impose?
District court order compelling arbitration affirmed on the merits. Stand-alone warning issued regarding fabricated citations and generative AI use without verification. No monetary sanction.
Why does Biglow v. Dell Technologies, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Biglow is the rare Tenth Circuit AI hallucination opinion that sits at the warning rather than sanction level. Judge Baldock’s panel affirmed on the merits and used the AI commentary as a separate stand-alone observation rather than a dispositive ground. The verbatim language pinning the conduct to “use of a generative artificial intelligence (‘AI’) tool, such as ChatGPT, without verifying the accuracy of the results” is the kind of attribution courts are starting to make confidently even where the litigant has not admitted AI use.
For Pennsylvania and other-jurisdiction firms with cases pending in the Tenth Circuit, Biglow signals that the warning posture is becoming a separate procedural step rather than a soft alternative to sanctions. The next Biglow-style filing in front of the same panel should expect FRAP 38 consequences. A small firm tracking judge-by-judge AI posture in any circuit it practices in is now part of the basic case-management discipline for AI-assisted work, just as tracking chambers-specific motion practice has been for decades.
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.
- Document a citation-verification step for any pro se opposition you encounter in 10th Cir. appellate matters; AI-assisted pro se appellate briefing is increasingly common.
- Track which 10th Cir. judges have written warning vs sanctions opinions on AI hallucinations to set expectations for forthcoming AI-assisted filings before each panel.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- Document mirror (Damien Charlotin hallucination database, Westlaw printout)
- Justia (legal aggregator)
Source PDF is a Westlaw printout mirrored from the Damien Charlotin hallucination database. We are working to add the underlying court docket (PACER, CourtListener, or court website) as a second source.