FOLLOW US

The Blame Game Begins

Rather than simply acknowledge the error, lead counsel Robert Carey of Hagens Berman chose to throw his colleague under the legal bus in spectacular fashion. In a statement that's now part of the public record, Carey explained that a "Yale Law School graduate and trusted colleague who has provided excellent work for over a decade" was responsible for the AI-enhanced brief.

But wait, there's more. Carey didn't stop at professional credentials—he dove headfirst into personal family tragedy. The unnamed attorney was apparently dealing with her father's entry into hospice care while he battled Parkinson's disease. "Under that strain, she turned to an AI tool to help polish her drafts, not realizing that in doing so, the tool had introduced or altered citations and text," Carey explained.

Here's where Carey's explanation raises eyebrows among legal ethics experts: when lawyers seek to correct their own mistakes in court, they typically need only claim "mistake, error, or inadvertence." There's no requirement—or professional wisdom—in airing personal family crises in public court filings. The fact that Carey felt compelled to do so suggests just how desperate he was to distance himself from this professional embarrassment.

Making Bad Worse

As if fake citations weren't enough, Carey also admitted the brief containing the fictional cases was filed late—another strike against the legal team's credibility with the court. "While late submissions are a reality in litigation, we are strengthening our procedures to ensure that our review process accounts for this issue in the future," he said, in what might qualify as the legal profession's most understated mea culpa of 2025.

The attorney who created the AI-enhanced documents has notably not filed a formal appearance in the case, meaning she's not officially representing the plaintiffs. Whether that's strategic legal maneuvering or professional damage control remains unclear.

The Irony of AI Fact-Checking AI

There's a delicious irony buried in this mess: OnlyFans' legal team used Westlaw to verify the fake citations, but Westlaw itself now incorporates AI tools directly into its platform. So essentially, they used one AI system to fact-check another AI system's hallucinations. It's AI fact-checking all the way down, with humans somewhere in the middle hoping it all works out.

What's Next

The plaintiffs have until August 27 to file their motion to correct the record, though they've indicated they're ready to move faster if the judge demands it. Meanwhile, OnlyFans is arguing that these repeated citation errors demonstrate such "abuse of the judicial system" that the plaintiffs have essentially forfeited their right to oppose moving the case to England.

What This Motion Does: OnlyFans is essentially arguing that the lawyers' repeated use of fake citations shows they're not competent to litigate in U.S. federal court, so the case should be dismissed or transferred to English courts where it "belongs" under the platform's terms of service.

The case highlights a growing problem in the legal profession: lawyers increasingly rely on AI tools for research and writing, but the technology isn't sophisticated enough to distinguish between real legal precedent and convincing-sounding fiction. When ChatGPT and similar tools "hallucinate" fake court cases, the results can be professionally devastating for attorneys who don't verify the AI's work.

For OnlyFans subscribers hoping to see their racketeering claims resolved, the fake citation fiasco represents yet another delay in what's already been a year-long legal battle. Whether the case ultimately proceeds in California federal court or gets shipped off to England may now depend as much on judicial patience with AI-generated legal fiction as on the actual merits of the forum-selection dispute.