1. Home
  2. |Insights
  3. |“Confirm You’re Not a Robot”: AI-Written Briefs Could Lead to Sanctions

“Confirm You’re Not a Robot”: AI-Written Briefs Could Lead to Sanctions

What You Need to Know

  • Key takeaway #1

    Bid protest litigants using AI-based tools when drafting pleadings must verify all output for complete accuracy prior to filing.

  • Key takeaway #2

    Counsel should also be mindful of potential GAO protective order obligations when using AI in protected protests.

Client Alert | 2 min read | 05.12.25

On May 7, 2025, GAO issued a decision in Raven Investigations & Security Consulting, LLC, B-423447, warning the bid protest bar that artificial intelligence (“AI”)-based tools utilized without proper oversight may result in severe consequences, including dismissal of the protest and sanctions.

In Raven Investigations, GAO noted numerous inconsistencies in a pro se protester’s filing, including:

  • purported direct quotations from GAO that could not be traced back to cited GAO decisions;
  • citations to purported GAO decisions that could be located via B-number or Comptroller General’s Procurement Decisions (“CPD”) citations but did not support the principles for which the protester cited them; and
  • citations to purported GAO decisions that could not be found.

When GAO questioned these citations, the protester admitted the identified irregularities resulted in part from its use of AI-assisted tools. GAO found that the protester’s explanation failed to excuse the use of improper citations, noting the Court of Federal Claims’ recent decision in Sanders v. United States, No. 24-cv-1301, 2025 WL 957666 (Fed. Cl. Mar. 31, 2025), which cautioned that “the use of AI programs to draft or assist in drafting legal briefs can—and seemingly often does—result in the citation of non‑existent cases.” GAO further explained that, “to the extent the protester used AI tools to help draft its responses . . . without engaging in any review of the material for accuracy . . . that practice wastes the time of all parties and GAO, and is at odds with the statutory mandate that our bid protest forum provide for ‘the inexpensive and expeditious resolution of protests.’”

Though GAO ultimately declined to impose sanctions on the protester, it cautioned pro se litigants and represented parties alike that GAO may impose sanctions against a protester whose actions undermine the integrity and effectiveness of the GAO process, referencing the Supreme Court’s instruction that a forum’s ability to levy sanctions in the face of “abusive litigation practices” as “ancient in origin.” For attorneys in particular, GAO noted that reliance on AI-generated tools without proper validation could violate professional rules of conduct and GAO protective order obligations, thus potentially resulting in attorney discipline.

Contacts

Insights

Client Alert | 4 min read | 08.07.25

File First, Facts Later? Eleventh Circuit Says That Discovery Can Inform False Claims Act Allegations in Amended Complaints

On July 25, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals issued its decision in United States ex. rel. Sedona Partners LLC v. Able Moving & Storage Inc. et al., holding that a district court cannot ignore new factual allegations included in an amended complaint filed by a False Claims Act qui tam relator based on the fact that those additional facts were learned in discovery, even while a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with the heightened pleading standard under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b) is pending.  Under Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud typically must include factual support showing the who, what, where, why, and how of the fraud to survive a defendant’s motion to dismiss.  And while that standard has not changed, Sedona gives room for a relator to file first and seek out discovery in order to amend an otherwise deficient complaint and survive a motion to dismiss, at least in the Eleventh Circuit.  Importantly, however, the Eleventh Circuit clarified that a district court retains the discretion to dismiss a relator’s complaint before or after discovery has begun, meaning that district courts are not required to permit discovery at the pleading stage.  Nevertheless, the Sedona decision is an about-face from precedent in the Eleventh Circuit, and many other circuits, where, historically, facts learned during discovery could not be used to circumvent Rule 9(b) by bolstering a relator’s factual allegations while a motion to dismiss was pending.  While the long-term effects of the decision remain to be seen, in the short term the decision may encourage relators to engage in early discovery in hopes of learning facts that they can use to survive otherwise meritorious motions to dismiss....

View All Insights