Key Developments

• Federal magistrate admonishes Jack Owoc for including at least 11 fabricated case citations in court filings
• Monster Energy argues monetary sanctions are insufficient, seeks pre-filing injunction already imposed against Owoc in bankruptcy court
• Ruling could signal new precedent on AI misuse in legal documents, with implications for attorneys and pro se litigants

By Samuel Lopez — USA Herald

FORT LAUDERDALE, FL - In a case that underscores the high-stakes consequences of corporate collapse and courtroom strategy, Monster Energy Company has fired back against Bang Energy founder Jack Owoc, who is now attempting to represent himself in litigation tied to the company’s bankruptcy and trademark disputes.

Owoc, ousted from Vital Pharmaceuticals, Inc. (the parent company of Bang), stunned observers by filing a pro se motion in federal court that was riddled with fake citations.

📌 Where the Fake Citations Are in Owoc’s Motion

In Owoc’s June 24, 2025 motion, he cited multiple cases that either do not exist or are misrepresented. These appear in the following places:

• Page 3, Paragraph beginning with “The One Satisfaction Rule…”
  Owoc cites Mickens v. Tenth Judicial Circuit, 181 So. 3d 1231 (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)— this case does not exist.
• Page 8, Paragraph under Section E “Theft by Litigation”
  Owoc cites Buci v. Village of Lincolnwood— this case does not exist.
• Page 19, Section N “California and Florida Set-Off Principles”
  Owoc cites several nonexistent cases:
  • Buczkowski v. McKay, 490 So. 2d 1282 (Fla. 1986)(doesn’t exist)
  • Cunningham v. Haroona, 741 So. 2d 603 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)(doesn’t exist)
  • Boulos v. Morrison, 880 So. 2d 246 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)(doesn’t exist)

So Owoc’s motion contains at least five fake citations across three sections (pp. 3, 8, and 19).

📌 How Monster Responded

Monster’s opposition filing (July 8, 2025) explicitly called out these hallucinated citations:

Monster noted that Owoc cited a “series of cases that do not appear to exist” and listed them directly:

• Mickens v. Tenth Judicial Circuit (Fla. 2d DCA 2015)
• Buci v. Village of Lincolnwood
• Buczkowski v. McKay (Fla. 1986)
• Cunningham v. Haroona (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1999)
• Boulos v. Morrison (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 2004)

Monster also pointed out that courts in Florida have sanctioned parties for submitting hallucinated citations before (citing Versant Funding LLC v. Teras Breakbulk Ocean Navigation Enters., LLC, 2025 WL 1440351 (S.D. Fla. May 20, 2025)).

📌 Judge’s Reaction

At the hearing, Judge Augustin-Birch said the court itself reviewed Owoc’s filings and counted 11 fake citations total:

• 6 in Owoc’s motion
• 5 in his reply brief.

That aligns with Monster’s observation and makes clear the court views this as serious misconduct in legal filings.

"It appears to the court that because of the volumes, the citations and some of the language that is used, the court took some time to try to decipher all of this and it appears to the court that AI may have been used in or order for you to prepare both your motion and your reply," she said.

Judge Augustin-Birch then ordered Owoc to explain why he included fake, AI-generated legal citations in his motion to dismiss Monster Energy's lawsuit to enforce a $377 million judgment it obtained over false advertising claims following a 2022 jury trial in California.

Judge Augustin-Birch didn't immediately issue an order, but she did admonish Owoc:

"I just want you to understand that when you represent yourself, you cannot rely on AI and not check to make sure that the cases you are using are correct propositions," she said. "Just because you are not an attorney, that does not mean you do not have to follow the rules."

In his own defense, Owoc told the Judge that he and his wife could not afford an attorney, citing the costs of raising six children. In the motion, Owoc paints himself as financially strapped despite his high-profile history in the energy drink industry:

“I am raising six children and cannot afford an attorney,” Owoc wrote, defending his decision to represent himself against Monster’s expansive claims.

"I know AI is causing courts a nightmare," Owoc said. "But we did not do anything intentional, but we corrected it and did file it this morning downstairs at the court's terminal. I just want to ask for the court's forgiveness and we don't do it again."

In response to Monster’s request for a filing ban, Owoc followed up by telling the Judge "Don't let them play you like they did with everybody else," he told the judge. "They are one of the most vexatious litigants to walk the planet earth."

But Monster Energy’s response was swift and unforgiving, portraying Owoc’s motion as both procedurally defective and substantively baseless.

Monster emphasized that Owoc remains a central figure in what they describe as a deliberate campaign of trademark abuse, corporate mismanagement, and misleading conduct that persisted even after Bang’s bankruptcy filing.

Bankruptcy Fallout and the Shadow of Mismanagement

Owoc’s legal troubles trace back to the spectacular fall of Bang Energy, which filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2022 under mounting debt and litigation pressure. Owoc was removed as CEO in 2023, but Monster insists that his liability did not vanish with his ouster.

The energy drink giant alleges that Owoc knowingly authorized misleading claims about Bang’s products — including controversial marketing of “Super Creatine” — and steered the company into reckless legal battles that ultimately gutted shareholder value.

Monster’s filing ties Owoc personally to these decisions, arguing he cannot now “hide behind bankruptcy proceedings” or plead poverty as a defense to liability.

The Pro Se Gamble

Legal analysts warn that Owoc’s choice to represent himself — especially against a behemoth like Monster — could prove disastrous. Federal litigation, particularly in the wake of bankruptcy, involves complex procedural traps. Judges have long cautioned that “a man who represents himself has a fool for a client.”

A Case That Could Set Precedent

The stakes extend beyond Owoc’s personal fortune. If Monster prevails in holding Owoc personally liable, it could mark a significant precedent for piercing the corporate veil in high-profile bankruptcies. Executives forced out of their companies rarely face continued personal exposure on this scale, particularly when corporate assets have already been sold off in bankruptcy court.

As one bankruptcy expert told USA Herald: “This case tests the limits of how far a court can go in holding a CEO accountable for alleged corporate misconduct after the entity itself has already been dissolved through Chapter 11.”

What Comes Next

The court has not yet ruled on Owoc’s motion, but legal observers say the odds are stacked against him. Monster’s response has effectively painted him as both legally incompetent and strategically evasive.

For now, Owoc remains in the unenviable position of being a former industry titan fighting alone — with six children at home, mounting legal bills, and the weight of Monster Energy bearing down on him.

Whether his pro se gamble is an act of desperation or defiance, one thing is clear: the courtroom clash between Monster and Owoc will shape not only the future of a once-billion-dollar brand but also the personal fate of its controversial founder.