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 | 5 min read | 12.12.25

Eleventh Circuit Hears Argument on False Claims Act Qui Tam Constitutionality

On the morning of December 12, 2025, the Eleventh Circuit heard argument in United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Florida Medical Associates, LLC, et al., No. 24-13581 (11th Cir. 2025). This case concerns the constitutionality of the False Claims Act (FCA) qui tam provisions and a groundbreaking September 2024 opinion in which the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida held that the FCA’s qui tam provisions were unconstitutional under Article II. See United States ex rel. Zafirov v. Fla. Med. Assocs., LLC, 751 F. Supp. 3d 1293 (M.D. Fla. 2024). That decision, penned by District Judge Kathryn Kimball Mizelle, was the first success story for a legal theory that has been gaining steam ever since Justices Thomas, Barrett, and Kavanaugh indicated they would be willing to consider arguments about the constitutionality of the qui tam provisions in U.S. ex rel. Polansky v. Exec. Health Res., 599 U.S. 419 (2023). In her opinion, Judge Mizelle held (1) qui tam relators are officers of the U.S. who must be appointed under the Appointments Clause; and (2) historical practice treating qui tam and similar relators as less than “officers” for constitutional purposes was not enough to save the qui tam provisions from the fundamental Article II infirmity the court identified. That ruling was appealed and, after full briefing, including by the government and a bevy of amici, the litigants stepped up to the plate this morning for oral argument....

View All Insights