SEC v. Nantomah
U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Wisconsin · E.D. Wis. · Wisconsin bar guidance
Conduct
Pro se defendant in SEC enforcement filed answer with fabricated case citations characteristic of generative AI output.
Consequence
Answer struck; ordered to file amended response by Feb 28, 2026. Rule 11 warning issued, no formal monetary sanction.
Lesson
Federal-agency enforcement actions are not exempt from AI-citation patterns. Pro se defendants face the same Rule 11 risk as plaintiffs.
Verified October 1, 2026
- Citation
- SEC v. Nantomah, No. 2:25-cv-01130-PP (E.D. Wis. Jan. 30, 2026) (Pepper, C.J.)
- Decided
- January 30, 2026
Summary
In a Securities and Exchange Commission civil enforcement action filed August 1, 2025 against Joseph Nantomah and three corporate entities he controlled (Investors Capital LLC, Global Investors Capital LLC, and High Income Performance Partners LLC) over an alleged unregistered securities scheme, Nantomah filed a pro se letter that the court construed as his answer. The SEC moved to strike it because it did not comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure or the court's Local Rules. Chief Judge Pamela Pepper found that the answer's citations bore the hallmarks of generative AI output, including Goldberg v. 401 North Washakie Venture LLC (cited as 155 F.3d 465, 7th Cir. 2014, but the volume and reporter combination corresponds to an unrelated Fourth Circuit driver-privacy case), Stenger v. R.H. Love Galleries, and Hirk v. Agri-Research Council, all with substantial citation defects. Nantomah could represent himself but not his companies, and the clerk entered default against the three corporate defendants.
- AI tool:
- Generative AI implied; the order references generative AI programs like ChatGPT generally
What did the court warn about?
The court granted the SEC's motion to strike Nantomah's answer because it did not comply with the Federal Rules (its general denial covered allegations he does not dispute) and ordered him to file a compliant amended response by February 28, 2026. No monetary sanction was imposed for the citation defects, but Pepper issued an explicit Rule 11 warning that the court may impose sanctions on Nantomah if a future filing violates Rule 11. The court observed that "generative artificial intelligence programs like ChatGPT regularly produce inaccurate or false case citations."
Why does SEC v. Nantomah matter for law firms using AI?
SEC v. Nantomah is one of two E.D. Wisconsin AI-citation cases handled by Chief Judge Pamela Pepper in a six-week window in late 2025 and early 2026; the other is Gerou v. George, decided six weeks earlier on December 18, 2025. Both orders use parallel Rule 11 warning language about generative AI hallucinations. The procedural posture in Nantomah is unusual for the AI-citation caseload: most reported sanctions cases involve pro se plaintiffs filing complaints or oppositions, while Nantomah involved a pro se defendant in a federal-agency enforcement action filing his answer to the SEC’s complaint. The court granted the motion to strike on the merits and used the citation defects as the occasion for a Rule 11 warning rather than a formal sanction, while leaving Nantomah opportunity to file a compliant amended response. Cross-reference: Gerou v. George (E.D. Wis. Dec. 18, 2025) (Pepper, C.J.).
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 citation-verification procedures for any responsive pleading filed by an unrepresented adverse party in an enforcement action; courts in the Seventh Circuit are increasingly inclined to flag the citation pattern rather than wait for a Rule 11 motion.
- When opposing a pro se defendant's filing, check its citations even if the motion rests on other grounds: here the SEC moved to strike under the Federal Rules and Local Rules, and the court itself identified the nonexistent cases.
- Train corporate-defense associates that the rule barring entities from appearing pro se still applies (the clerk entered default against the three unrepresented companies here), and that a pro se answer resting on an improper general denial can be struck, with a Rule 11 warning added when it cites nonexistent cases.