spoliation of evidence sanctions examples
AI Search Visibility Analysis
Analyze how brands appear across multiple AI search platforms for a specific prompt
Total Mentions
Total number of times a brand appears
across all AI platforms for this prompt
Platform Presence
Number of AI platforms where the brand
was mentioned for this prompt
Linkbacks
Number of times brand website was
linked in AI responses
Sentiment
Overall emotional tone when brand is
mentioned (Positive/Neutral/Negative)
Brand Performance Across AI Platforms
| BRAND | TOTAL MENTIONS | PLATFORM PRESENCE | LINKBACKS | SENTIMENT | SCORE |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
1UBS Warburg | 2 | 0 | 95 | ||
2Facebook | 1 | 0 | 55 |
Strategic Insights & Recommendations
Dominant Brand
No specific brands are prominently featured across the responses, as the content focuses on legal cases and court sanctions rather than commercial entities.
Platform Gap
ChatGPT provides specific named case examples with dollar amounts, while Google AIO offers comprehensive sanction types and Perplexity includes statistical data and broader legal theories.
Link Opportunity
Legal firms specializing in litigation support, e-discovery services, and evidence preservation could benefit from content addressing spoliation prevention and compliance.
Key Takeaways for This Prompt
Spoliation sanctions range from adverse inference instructions to complete case dismissal depending on the severity and intent of evidence destruction.
Courts consider four key factors when imposing sanctions: intent (negligent vs. intentional), prejudice to opposing party, relevance of destroyed evidence, and duty to preserve.
Monetary sanctions can be substantial, with cases showing awards ranging from hundreds of thousands to over $700,000 in penalties and attorney fees.
Adverse inference instructions are the most common sanction, used in approximately 44% of spoliation cases, allowing juries to assume destroyed evidence was unfavorable.
AI Search Engine Responses
Compare how different AI search engines respond to this query
ChatGPT
BRAND (2)
SUMMARY
ChatGPT provides specific case examples of spoliation sanctions, including Zubulake v. UBS Warburg (adverse inference instruction), Allied Concrete v. Lester ($700,000 sanctions for deleted Facebook photos), Victor Stanley v. Creative Pipe (default judgment and $337,796 in fees), BalanceCXI v. International Consulting (default judgment for deleted data), and Ocwen Loan Servicing (adverse inference for lost emails). The response emphasizes the serious consequences of evidence destruction.
REFERENCES (4)
Perplexity
SUMMARY
Perplexity explains common spoliation sanctions with statistics (adverse inference used in 44% of cases), including evidence exclusion, monetary sanctions, dismissal, and preclusion orders. It provides case examples of pre-surgery sanctions in personal injury cases, mobile device communication destruction in civil rights cases, and third-party tort liability for evidence destruction. The response emphasizes that sanction severity depends on intent, relevance, and prejudice.
REFERENCES (8)
Google AIO
SUMMARY
Google AIO provides a comprehensive overview of spoliation sanctions types including adverse inference instructions, evidence exclusion, striking pleadings, default judgment, dismissal, monetary penalties, contempt of court, and expert testimony preclusion. It explains key factors courts consider: intent, prejudice, relevance, and duty to preserve. Examples include text message deletion, surveillance footage failure, document alteration, and ignoring court orders.
REFERENCES (22)
Share Report
Share this AI visibility analysis report with others through social media