All Reports

U.S. District Court Orders Ameris Bank and Patrick Byrne to Disclose Generative AI Use in Pleadings

Bot Mutiny | September 11, 2026

Judge Michelle Williams Court of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California issued an order on September 8, 2026, requiring both the plaintiff and defendant in Ameris Bank v. Patrick Byrne to disclose whether they used generative artificial intelligence to draft their recent legal filings. The order, first reported by CourtListener, follows the failure of both parties to include mandatory AI declarations with their latest submissions. The court didn't strike the pleadings immediately but gave the parties a deadline of Thursday, September 10, 2026, to comply. ## Mandated Transparency for Generative AI

The legal dispute involves Ameris Bank, a Georgia corporation, and individual defendant Patrick Byrne. According to the court order, the parties failed to attach declarations to the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss (Dkt. 45) and the Plaintiff's Opposition to the Motion (Dkt. 49). The court's Civil Standing Order now requires a signed declaration for every motion, pleading, or paper. This declaration must be signed under penalty of perjury and disclose the use or non-use of generative AI. The order specifically names tools like Claude, ChatGPT, Harvey, CoCounsel, and Google Bard as examples of what must be reported. If a lawyer or litigant uses these tools, they can't just copy and paste. The standing order requires the preparer to certify they've reviewed the source material and verified the accuracy of any AI-generated content. This process is tied directly to Rule 11 obligations, which govern the integrity of representations made to the court. ## Enforcement of Local Standing Orders

Judge Court's order emphasizes that the court has "considerable latitude" in managing motion practice and enforcing local rules. The order cites several precedents for this authority, including Christian v. Mattel, Inc. and Bias v. Moynihan. The specific requirement for this case is simple. The preparer must certify either that no portion of the filing was drafted by AI, or identify which portions incorporate AI outputs. If they used AI, they must swear they verified it. The stakes for non-compliance are clear. The order states that failure to timely submit the declaration will result in the court striking the relevant pleading. For Ameris Bank and Patrick Byrne, missing the September 10 deadline means their arguments could be removed from the record entirely. ## The Push for Accountability

Courts are increasingly wary of how generative models are used to manufacture legal arguments. By requiring a declaration under penalty of perjury, the Central District of California is forcing a level of accountability that the tech industry usually avoids. The order is a direct response to the integration of these models into legal workflows. It doesn't ban the tools, but it ensures that if a machine writes the brief, a human being is legally responsible for the hallucinations or errors it produces. In this case, both a major bank and a high-profile individual are being held to that standard.