Expert: Judge Walter Spader Jr., Judge, Connecticut Superior Court In Elliott v. New York Bariatric Group, Connecticut Judge Walter Spader Jr. documented what appears to be the first US attempt by a litigant to hide prompt-injection text in court filings. Pro se plaintiff Matthew Elliott embedded instructions in tiny white-on-white type — invisible to a human reader but fully legible to software — telling any AI system reviewing the document to ensure its output agreed with his arguments, ignore the court's prior denials, and secure the remediation he wanted. The attack failed. The Connecticut Judicial Branch does not use AI to review or decide filings, and Spader confirmed the hidden text had no impact: the court weighed the filing on its merits. Elliott still drew sanctions for what the judge called 'serious litigation abuse' — barred from e-filing in the future, though spared monetary penalties as a pro se litigant. Spader used the case to flag a 'genuine hazard' of AI in litigation: chatbot sycophancy entrenching litigants in flawed positions. Elliott had built his case with a chatbot that only argued his side, and the judge warned that 'an argument prompted only to agree with its author is, in the end, dishonest even with its author.' He urged courts to prepare rules for prompt injection as AI tools spread through the judiciary, noting a similar attack in Brazil had already drawn roughly $16,000 in sanctions. Source: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/08/suspecting-court-of-using-ai-man-injected-prompts-in-filings-to-try-to-win-case/