Four Sources Cited.
Wolf River Says None Said It.
Wolf River Electric alleges that on March 5, 2025, a customer canceled a $150,000 solar contract after seeing a Google AI Overview stating the company was being sued by Minnesota’s Attorney General. The Overview cited four real, checkable sources. According to the complaint, none of them said any such thing — and three more sales were lost the same way in the days around it.
On March 5, 2025, according to Wolf River Electric’s complaint, a customer sent a Wolf River sales representative a screenshot: a Google AI Overview stating the Isanti, Minnesota solar installer was “currently facing a lawsuit from the Minnesota Attorney General due to allegations of deceptive sales practices regarding their solar panel installations, including misleading customers about cost savings, using high-pressure tactics, and tricking homeowners into signing binding contracts with hidden fees.” The complaint separately describes a customer, identified only by contract number, who raised the same concern that day; Wolf River’s CEO reassured that customer the publications were false, the complaint says, and the customer terminated a $150,000 contract for a 44.2-kilowatt system anyway. Wolf River alleges the cancellation, and three other lost sales in the days around it, all trace to one accusation: something Google’s own system generated and attached to a company none of the cited sources identified as a defendant in an Attorney General lawsuit.
It was not the only lost sale that week. Two days earlier, per the complaint, a customer terminated a signed $39,680 contract after he “Googled” Wolf River and found the same claim. The next day, a prospective customer declined a $26,400 proposal for the same stated reason. Six days later, a nonprofit told Wolf River it was “pulling the plug” on the relationship because of “several lawsuits in the last year” with the “Attorney General’s Office,” canceling a combined $174,044.12 in solar and lighting work. Four lost sales, alleged across nine days. Every one of them traces to the same accusation.
The AI Overview cited four sources. Per the complaint, none of them said what the AI Overview said. The first was a Star Tribune article about Minnesotans overpaying for solar installations, which Wolf River alleges “never states Wolf River is facing a lawsuit from the Minnesota Attorney General.” The second was an Angie’s List review, which the complaint says “is not a news report” and never mentions a lawsuit at all. The third was a 2022 Minnesota Attorney General publication naming solar-related parties to an earlier action — Wolf River alleges it names ten companies, “none of which are Wolf River.” The fourth was a KROC News article, “Minnesota AG Suing Four Solar Panel Sales Companies,” which named the actual 2022 defendants — Brio Energy, Bello Solar Energy, Avolta Power, and Sunny Solar Utah, plus three lenders — and, per the complaint, “never mentions Wolf River Electric.”
Minnesota’s Attorney General did sue four solar-lending companies in 2024 — GoodLeap, Sunlight Financial, Solar Mosaic, and Dividend Solar Finance — a different four companies than the ones the 2022 KROC article named, and a different action than the one the AI Overview described. Wolf River was a defendant in neither. The complaint’s own conclusion is blunt: “Google’s publication falsely claims Wolf River is currently facing a lawsuit from the Minnesota Attorney General. None of the four sources Google cited support this claim.” All four sources existed. According to Wolf River’s complaint, none supported the sentence built on top of them.
Google disputes the allegations. In a statement to Politico, carried by Futurism, the company said: “The vast majority of our AI Overviews are accurate and helpful but like with any new technology, mistakes can happen…As soon as we found out about the problem, we acted quickly to fix it.” In its formal answer to the complaint, per the Star Tribune, Google described the AI Overview as reflecting “documents, publications, and internet postings, the contents of which speak for themselves.” Wolf River brought the suit in Ramsey County on a complaint dated March 12, 2025; Google removed the case to federal court on June 9, 2025; a federal judge remanded it back to Ramsey County in January 2026, ruling that Google’s notice of removal came too late — a procedural ruling on timing, not one on the merits. The federal docket closed on February 26, 2026, after the remand. The case is active today in Ramsey County: Minnesota court records show it Reopened, reassigned from Judge Edward Sheu to Judge Victoria Gardner on September 15, 2026, with motion hearings scheduled for October 21, 2026 and October 28, 2026. No merits ruling has issued. Every damages figure connected to this case, including the $110 million to $210 million Wolf River told the Star Tribune it is seeking, is Wolf River’s own claim, not an adjudicated fact.
The AI Overview didn’t fabricate a source. It fabricated what the sources add up to.
The error wasn’t inside any one source. It was between them. The error was not that the cited actions were imaginary. Both Minnesota Attorney General actions were real. The entity match was not. The 2022 materials named other solar businesses and lenders; the 2024 action named four lending companies. Wolf River alleges that it was a defendant in neither, yet the AI Overview attached the Attorney General-lawsuit accusation to Wolf River.
Most of this record documents real standing an answer engine failed to recognize. Here the failure runs the other way: a false status was synthesized and attached to a company Wolf River alleges was named in neither Attorney General action discussed by the cited materials. It sits beside Digital Derangement Syndrome™’s usual pattern without yet carrying its name.
The Agentics read
Answer Engine Authority™ treats citation and entailment as two separate checks, not one. A source existing is step one. Confirming what that source actually supports, for this entity and no other, is step two — the distinction this AI Overview failed to preserve in a live search result seen by prospective customers. Wolf River’s complaint remains open. A same-week companion, Keene v. Google (N.D. Ill.), shows the pattern is not isolated: on September 14, 2026, a federal judge there let a defamation claim over two of the four AI Overviews Keene challenges proceed. The lesson standing across both cases: sourcing is not verification. Something outside the sentence still has to check what the sentence claims.
Allegations and quoted pleadings are drawn from the complaint in LTL LED, LLC d/b/a Wolf River Electric v. Google LLC, filed in Ramsey County District Court and removed to the U.S. District Court, District of Minnesota, case 0:25-cv-02394 — docket via CourtListener — plus the live Ramsey County docket for case 62-CV-25-4594, captured September 16, 2026. The remand ruling is drawn from the court’s own order, filed January 9, 2026 under the same case number.
The first of the four sources the AI Overview cited, per the complaint, is “Minnesota homeowners say they were hit with huge hidden fees when going solar,” Minnesota Star Tribune, November 8, 2024 — reporting on the Attorney General’s 2024 suit against four lending companies, distinct from the outlet’s later coverage of Wolf River’s suit against Google below.
Google’s statement to Politico is carried by Futurism. Procedural history, Google’s formal answer, and the $110 million to $210 million damages figure Wolf River told the paper it is seeking are reported by the Minnesota Star Tribune. The Keene v. Google companion order is drawn from the court’s own docket entry, Justia Dockets & Filings, Filing 29.