Technology news and discussion on TalkFuse.
Court Orders Plaintiff to File Handwritten Opposition,
A Florida federal judge has ordered a plaintiff in an NFT dispute to file his opposition to a motion for judgment in his own handwriting, after expressing concern that numerous filings appeared to contain AI-generated legal errors. The judge pointed to a non-existent Supreme Court case cited as authority and said it did not support the argument for which it was used.
The plaintiff says he created 141 CryptoPunk V1 NFTs in 2017 and alleges their creator impaired their value by promoting a second version as the authoritative collection. His lawsuit seeks unspecified damages and an injunction, with claims including fraudulent concealment and unjust enrichment. The judge also noted that the plaintiff’s filings had repeatedly certified that citations were verified, despite the fabricated reference.
In short
- Judge cites apparent AI-related errors in a plaintiff’s legal filings.
- One filing relied on a Supreme Court case that does not exist.
- The underlying dispute concerns 141 CryptoPunk V1 NFTs.
Steelman: both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
A handwritten filing could help the judge assess whether the plaintiff personally understands and stands behind arguments submitted in his name, especially after a filing cited a non-existent Supreme Court case while certifying that its citations had been checked. It may also encourage greater care in a case where unreliable legal authorities risk wasting the court’s time and undermining fair consideration of the dispute.
The case against
Requiring handwriting may impose an unusual burden that does little to establish who drafted the arguments or whether their citations are accurate; a litigant can still receive help, and handwriting itself is no safeguard against errors. The court could instead address the problem through ordinary procedures, such as requiring corrected, verified submissions, while ensuring the plaintiff can present his claims without an extra barrier.
Explained simply
CryptoPunks are digital collectibles linked to tokens on a blockchain, and the dispute concerns two versions known as V1 and V2. The plaintiff says he created 141 V1 tokens in 2017 and claims that promoting V2 as the recognised collection damaged the value of his work.
He is suing the collection’s creator, seeking damages and a court order, and alleges that the creator concealed information and unfairly benefited. In US federal court, a motion for judgment asks a judge to decide a case, or part of it, without a trial; the parties must support their arguments with accurate legal citations.