King v AT&T Corp
AI-generated text. This page was generated using artificial intelligence.
King v. AT&T Corp. is a consumer credit-reporting and debt-collection action in the Western District of Washington. On October 13, 2026, Judge Lauren King required the self-represented plaintiff, Jtwain King, to disclose generative-AI use and certify the accuracy of future filings and correspondence with opposing counsel after finding Rule 11 violations involving nonexistent legal authorities.[1][2]
Background and September 9 ruling
According to the court’s account of the complaint, King alleged that an AT&T account error led to debt collection and inaccurate credit reporting, and asserted federal and Washington consumer-law claims. These were the plaintiff’s allegations.[1]
On September 9, 2026, the court granted Equifax’s motion for judgment on the pleadings, joined by Experian. It concluded that the complaint’s exhibits contradicted the alleged reporting inaccuracy, dismissed the claims against those two defendants and denied leave to amend as futile. The court separately ordered King to show cause concerning repeated procedural violations and nonexistent citations, and stayed the action while considering whether to dismiss the remaining claims or impose other sanctions.[1]
October 13 disclosure and certification order
The October 13 order recounts King’s denial that she used generative AI to draft any filing. She characterized the disputed authorities as citation-verification errors. The court accepted her assurances about the factual allegations for purposes of allowing the remaining claims to continue, but found her explanation for the nonexistent authorities unpersuasive and identified Rule 11 violations.[2]
The court ordered King to include a statement under penalty of perjury in every future court filing and communication with opposing counsel, including discovery responses. The statement must address whether generative AI was used, identify the tool used, and certify personal review, that citations and quotations refer to existing authority, and that factual assertions have an adequate foundation.[2]
The court lifted the stay and declined to require payment of Equifax’s attorney’s fees because King committed to comply with its directives. It warned that future violations could lead to further sanctions, including dismissal. The order did not reverse the earlier dismissal of the Equifax and Experian claims.[2][1]
Related coverage
References
- ↑ 1.00 1.01 1.02 1.03 1.04 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.09 1.10 W.D. Wash., King v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:25-cv-02270-LK, ECF 73, order granting judgment on the pleadings and order to show cause, September 9, 2026, pp. 1–14.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.4 2.5 2.6 2.7 2.8 W.D. Wash., King v. AT&T Corp., No. 2:25-cv-02270-LK, ECF 75, order imposing sanctions, October 13, 2026, pp. 1–3.
- ↑ 3.0 3.1 King v. AT&T Corp., W.D. Wash. docket reproduced by CourtListener/RECAP; public snapshot updated October 15, 2026, last known filing October 13, 2026.