Oklahoma · federal district court
General Order 26-7: Use of Artificial Intelligence in Preparing Court Filings
Litigants are responsible for reviewing and verifying the accuracy of all content filed that an AI tool drafted or assisted with, citations included. Where the court has reason to believe that did not happen, it may require a statement naming the tool and certifying the review.
Tracker entry · Oklahoma
- Court. U.S. District Court, Northern District of OklahomaCOURT
- Level. federal district courtLEVEL
- Date. 9 September 2026DATED
- What it requires. verification duty, disclosureREQUIRES
- Source. Read the documentSOURCE
Last checked · we opened the source on that day and drew the requirement above from its text.
The order is court-wide rather than judge-specific, and it starts from what the court is seeing: a rising number of filings with false statements of fact or law, including citations to fabricated or incorrect authority.
It does not require routine disclosure. The standing duty is verification: the litigant must review and verify the accuracy of all content drafted or assisted by an AI tool. Disclosure is conditional. If the court has reason to believe a litigant has not verified, it may require a statement in all filings naming the tool, identifying which portions are AI-generated, and certifying that the filer personally verified each legal authority cited.
This entry is descriptive, not legal advice. It records what one document says. Read the order that governs your own division before you rely on any of it, and check whether it has changed since the date above.
Back to every jurisdiction in the tracker, or readhow to check an AI citation before you file.