Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union
Pennsylvania Superior Court · Pa. Super. Ct. · Pennsylvania bar guidance
Verified May 5, 2026
- Citation
- Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union, 2026 PA Super 7, No. 2449 EDA 2024 (Pa. Super. Jan. 14, 2026)
- Decided
- January 14, 2026
Summary
A pro se appellant challenged the denial of clear title on a Navy Federal auto loan (loan amount $42,399.00, with $42,375.76 financed). On appeal, the pro se appellant cited cases the court determined did not exist, including purported D'Happart v. First Commonwealth Bank citations at 110 A.3d 167 (Pa. Super. 2015) and 291 A.3d 1026 (Pa. Super. 2023). The court found 'No such case exists at either of these citations' and that appellee identified additional non-existent citations attributed to Appellant's use of generative AI. The opinion quoted Al-Hamim v. Star Hearthstone, LLC for the proposition that GAI can generate 'totally fabricated court decisions.'
- AI tool:
- Generative AI (unspecified)
What sanction did the court impose?
The Pennsylvania Superior Court (panel: Panella, P.J.E., Dubow, J., and Nichols, J.; opinion by Nichols, J.) affirmed the trial court's order, holding Appellant waived his claims by failing to develop cognizable arguments with citation to relevant authority. No monetary sanctions were imposed. The opinion expressly warned that 'use of GAI to draft legal filings (including by pro se litigants), without verification of the accuracy of the content so produced, may lead to misstatements and/or misrepresentations of legal authority' and that such content is not 'pertinent' authority. The opinion was issued as a reported decision (2026 PA Super 7).
Why does Saber v. Navy Federal Credit Union matter for law firms using AI?
Saber is the Pennsylvania Superior Court’s first documented engagement with AI-generated hallucinations. The pro se context is significant: unlike attorney-drafted filings, pro se appellants have no professional duty to verify citations, yet may be more likely to rely entirely on AI output without access to legal research tools. The Superior Court’s application of appellate waiver rather than sanctions is a pragmatic response that treats the fabricated citations as procedurally insufficient rather than sanctionable misconduct. The opinion’s explicit recognition that AI hallucinations undermine accuracy and reliability signals that future attorney-generated AI citations will face heightened appellate scrutiny.