Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc.
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Arkansas · E.D. Ark. · Arkansas bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se plaintiff suing New Balance prepared a brief with generative AI that misstated 27 of 30 cited cases, invented 23 false quotations, and fabricated 2 cases.
Consequence
Motion to strike granted; response stricken. Court admonished Magee and ordered him to show cause why a monetary sanction should not issue.
Lesson
An AI-infected brief that is interwoven with false citations can be stricken whole, not just corrected; here it also triggered a show-cause order for monetary sanctions.
Verified May 14, 2026
- Citation
- Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc., No. 4:25-cv-265-DPM (E.D. Ark. Dec. 2, 2025) (Marshall, J.)
- Decided
- December 2, 2025
Summary
Steven Magee, proceeding pro se, brought a trademark infringement action in the Eastern District of Arkansas, Central Division, against New Balance Athletics, Inc. Magee prepared his response to New Balance's motion to dismiss using generative AI. By New Balance's count, the response misstated the holdings of 27 of the 30 cases cited, invented false quotations from 23 cases, and fabricated 2 cases. Magee acknowledged using generative AI and apologized, saying he was unaware it could produce such errors. District Judge D.P. Marshall Jr. issued a December 2, 2025 order granting New Balance's motion to strike the response.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI; the tool is not named, but Magee acknowledged on the record that he prepared the response using generative AI
What sanction did the court impose?
New Balance's motion to strike Magee's response was granted and the response stricken. The court accepted Magee's apology but admonished him to verify all cited sources and to treat AI-generated material with skepticism. The court ordered Magee to show cause by January 9, 2026 why a monetary sanction should not be imposed, noting his response "gummed up the case" and forced New Balance to incur unnecessary attorney's fees. New Balance's motion to dismiss the counterfeiting claim and Magee's motion for partial summary judgment were both denied without prejudice.
Why does Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. matter for law firms using AI?
Magee v. New Balance Athletics, Inc. is the second AI-hallucination matter to surface on Judge D.P. Marshall Jr.’s E.D. Ark. docket, following Aponte v. Portfolio Recovery Associates (Apr. 9, 2025). Both involve pro se plaintiffs and fabricated case-law citations, but the dispositions differ in severity: where Aponte drew a warning-class response, the Magee order granted New Balance’s motion to strike the response in full and ordered Magee to show cause why a monetary sanction should not issue. The court’s reasoning is instructive: the misstatements and false quotations were “so interwoven with the argument that the Court was unable to rely on the document,” so striking it whole, rather than correcting it citation by citation, was the proportionate remedy. Cross-reference: Aponte v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, LLC, No. 4:24-cv-1053-DPM (E.D. Ark. Apr. 9, 2025) (Marshall, C.J.). Both cases involve consumer-facing financial defendants (debt collector and athletic-shoe brand), suggesting the fact pattern is plaintiff-side consumer-litigation pro se.
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.
- Track Judge D.P. Marshall Jr.'s emerging chambers practice on AI-hallucinated citations; Magee is the second AI-fabrication matter on his docket after Aponte v. Portfolio Recovery Associates (Apr. 2025).
- The eight-month gap between Aponte and Magee suggests a steady drumbeat of pro se AI-fabrication matters in E.D. Ark.; defense counsel should screen pro se filings as standard practice in this district.
- When false citations are interwoven throughout an opponent's brief, moving to strike the entire filing is a viable remedy; the Magee court struck the response whole rather than parsing it citation by citation.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
- Whether Magee was placed on a Marshall chambers AI-disclosure protocol for future filings (compare Aponte v. Portfolio Recovery Associates, also Marshall) is not on the available record.
- The disposition of the January 9, 2026 show-cause order, including whether a monetary sanction was ultimately imposed, is not visible from this order.