That list seems to be focused on parties showing up to court with AI-hallucinated information.

The majority involve false quotes and citations. These are verifiable things. A citation reference can be followed and it will either refer to a real case or it doesn't, and then the citation either matches what was said in that case or it doesn't.

Proving that the ticket price AI discriminates in an illegal fashion would be much more difficult in court, especially when there is no longer any basis for a "normal" ticket price.

It results in the same kind of situation as when someone is not hired because of their race, but the hiring manager would never say that. They'll construct some other reasoning. How do you prove what was in their head when they made the decision?