A Delaware Chancery magistrate declined to sanction a Section 220 plaintiff over apparently hallucinated citations, but ordered a GenAI certification on every future filing

Key takeaways

• The report recommends declining to enforce the plaintiff's Section 220 demand because he "already received the documents necessary and essential to achieve his proper purposes".
• The magistrate found the sources cited in the opening brief exist, but "many of the quotations and propositions for which Plaintiff cites them do not".
• She did not sanction the plaintiff that day, and instead ordered accuracy and a GenAI certification on future filings.

What did the magistrate recommend on the Section 220 demand?

The report resolves Zheng Liu's demand to inspect the books and records of Lynk Global, Inc. under Section 220 of the Delaware General Corporation Law. It says the trial took place on a paper record over one half-day. The magistrate recommends that the Court decline to enforce the demand because the plaintiff "has already received the documents necessary and essential to achieve his proper purposes". She also recommends declining the defendant's request to shift fees. On one stated purpose, the report finds the plaintiff received sufficient information to verify that he is a stockholder of record. On another, it finds he did not articulate a proper purpose, because a Section 220 action "is not for the merely curious". The report notes that exceptions may be taken under Court of Chancery Rule 144.

What did the report find about the plaintiff's citations?

The finding sits in the section on the defendant's fee request. The magistrate wrote that the plaintiff's pre-trial opening brief relies heavily on legal citations apparently hallucinated by GenAI, and that although the cited sources exist, many of the quotations and propositions do not appear in them. The report gives examples:

• The brief cites Section 220(c) for the proposition that the Court "shall" order inspection once a proper purpose is shown. The report says Section 220(c) says the Court "may", not "shall".
• The brief cites Noddings Investment Group v. Capstar Communications for a proposition about verifying stockholder status. The report says Noddings does not address a Section 220 demand.
• The brief purports to quote Carapico v. Philadelphia Stock Exchange, and Saito v. McKesson HBOC. For each, the report says the language does not appear in that case "nor any other opinion I can locate".

The report adds "There are more examples." It records that the plaintiff, when the defendant raised the issue, described his miscitations as unintentional and said the legal principles remained accurate even if certain quotations were imperfectly phrased. The magistrate answered "that is not true", and noted that at trial the plaintiff did not deny that this happened because he used GenAI to write his brief.

Why did she not sanction the plaintiff, and what did she order?

On fees, she found that the matter had not gone on for long and that the plaintiff's conduct, while it may have frustrated the defendant, did not amount to bad faith justifying fee-shifting. She then wrote "Plaintiff is warned, however, that misuse of GenAI may result in fee-shifting or other sanctions in the future." On sanctions, she wrote "I am not sanctioning Plaintiff today." The report states that a party may be sanctioned for submitting false or nonexistent legal authority.

She ordered the plaintiff to ensure every future filing is truthful and accurate and cites legitimate legal authorities. Any future filing must include a certification, substantially in the form required by the order accompanying the letter, addressing the use of GenAI. The report says failure to comply may result in sanctions, including monetary penalties, stricken filings, or the dismissal of his claims. On latitude for self-represented parties, it quotes Delaware authority that judges treat them with some degree of latitude, and says there is a limit to it. It also quotes the statement that it is "improper and unacceptable" for litigants, including pro se litigants, to submit non-existent judicial opinions with fake quotes and citations.

The report ties the risk to Section 220 practice specifically: the process is intended to let a corporation avoid litigation by engaging with a stockholder before suit, and reliance on fictitious legal principles in that process deprives the company of the ability to resolve the demand without spending time and money on litigation.

What should filers and counsel do now?

Treat this as one court's reasoning in one case, and apply the checks it implies.

• Open every cited authority and confirm that each quoted passage and each stated proposition appears in it, including statutory text such as "may" versus "shall".
• If you use GenAI to help draft a filing, keep a record of what was generated and what a person verified.
• If a court order requires a GenAI certification, complete it from your own verification record and read the form the order actually uses.
• See our related coverage of a separate Chancery matter on fictitious quotations and the appellate treatment of pro se fabricated citations.

What are the key dates and parties?

What we did not verify

What we opened: the 24-page post-trial letter report on the Delaware courts website, on 2026-10-25.

What we did not open: the order accompanying the report that sets the form of the GenAI certification, the docket, the plaintiff's opening and reply briefs, the cited cases, any exceptions filed under Rule 144, and any later order of the Court adopting or changing the report. We did not check whether the Court has acted on the recommendations.

What we refuse to claim: that the Court has entered a final judgment, that the plaintiff was sanctioned, how the plaintiff used any particular tool, or that other Chancery judges apply the same approach.

Related briefings

• AI Regulation News hub
• North America AI regulation tracker
• Attorneys and AI regulation
• Delaware Chancery on fictitious quotations as a hallmark of AI use
• Delaware Chancery Rule 11 show-cause order on GenAI
• Pennsylvania Superior Court on hallucinated citations and a pro se litigant
• US appellate courts on pro se AI-fabricated citations