Williamson v. Meyers

How did the court address the AI-related conduct?

Judge Gregory B. Williams granted Defendants' motion to dismiss. Count I was dismissed with prejudice for failure to plead demand futility under Rule 23.1 and failure to state a claim, and the court declined supplemental jurisdiction over Counts II-IV, which were dismissed without prejudice. On the citation issue, the court stated that it "has not considered any of Plaintiff's contentions, to the extent that they rely on fabricated authority, and will consider whether any other action is necessary." The opinion imposed no sanction and set no show-cause or other proceeding. The CourtListener docket, as read on 2026-09-30, shows no entry after the May 27, 2026 memorandum opinion (D.I. 44) and order (D.I. 45). The opinion does not identify which of Plaintiff's contentions relied on the fabricated authority. Footnote 7 separately notes a citation to "Lebanon Cnty. Employees' Ret. Fund v. Pyott" that the court said Plaintiff "may have intended" as a citation to a different Delaware Supreme Court decision, Collis.

Why does Williamson v. Meyers matter for law firms using AI?

Williamson v. Meyers shows a federal judge treating a fabricated citation as a merits problem first and a conduct problem second. The court found the non-existent authority itself while reviewing the briefing on the motion to dismiss. The docket records a May 14, 2026 oral order directing Plaintiff to email chambers a copy of “Gavin v. Quandt, 2021 WL 1741810 (D. Del. May 3, 2021),” cited in the opposition brief at page 22, by 3:00 p.m. the next day, and, “[i]f the case does not exist,” to explain the cite in writing. The May 27 opinion does not name the authority it found, so whether Gavin v. Quandt is that authority is an inference from the docket, not something the opinion states; the opinion reports that “[a]fter investigating, Plaintiff conceded that this fictitious citation was most likely the result of artificial intelligence (‘AI’).”

The consequence, stated in a single footnote to the conclusion, is that the court “has not considered any of Plaintiff’s contentions, to the extent that they rely on fabricated authority.” The opinion then grants the motion: Count I, the federal proxy claim, fails for want of adequately pleaded demand futility and failure to state a claim, and the state-law counts are dismissed without prejudice after the court declined to exercise supplemental jurisdiction. The court reserved the conduct question, saying it “will consider whether any other action is necessary,” and the docket as read on 2026-09-30 shows no later action.

For firms, the docket shows a court checking a citation on its own review of the briefing and allowing about a day to respond. Plaintiff was represented by three firms, and the opinion attributes the citation to “Plaintiff” without naming a drafting attorney. Firms documenting compliance may wish to consider how co-counsel arrangements allocate responsibility for cite-checking a brief filed on behalf of a client represented by several firms.