Medal v. Amazon.com Services LLC
U.S. District Court, Western District of Washington · W.D. Wash. · Washington bar guidance
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- Medal v. Amazon.com Services LLC, No. 2:23-cv-01975-JHC, Dkt. 129 (W.D. Wash. Mar. 4, 2026)
- Filing date
- March 4, 2026
Summary
Plaintiffs' counsel filed an Opposition to Amazon's Motion to Stay (Dkt. 122) containing "juxtaposed" language paired with a false citation to a nonexistent statutory provision. Amazon moved for an Order to Show Cause. Judge John H. Chun granted the motion and ordered plaintiffs' counsel to explain each signatory's role in the false citation, whether and how generative AI aided the drafting or research, and what verification mechanisms were in place.
- AI tool:
- Unspecified generative AI
What is the current procedural posture?
Order to Show Cause granted. Plaintiffs' counsel directed to file a written explanation on or before March 18, 2026. No monetary sanction imposed in this order; potential sanctions deferred pending the response. No ruling on the explanation appears in the docket text on CourtListener through September 28, 2026.
Why does Medal v. Amazon.com Services LLC matter for law firms using AI?
Medal illustrates the now-routine OSC posture: when opposing counsel surfaces a fabricated citation, the court does not sanction reflexively but compels counsel to disclose AI use and verification practices on the record. For managing partners, the operative lesson is that a written, file-level verification protocol is what counsel will be asked to produce, often within two weeks, and its absence is itself a finding.
Sources
Primary sources
Further reading
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.