NL | Rechtbank Noord-Nederland
Docket: C/18/244013 / HA ZA 25-101 • first instance
2025-11-19
ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814
ChatGPT (suspected) wrong citation to real sourceirrelevant authoritiesno human verificationsuspected ai assisted research
I. Executive Summary
In a dispute about setting aside an estate division, the court examined case-law citations relied on by the claimants and found they were inaccurate, misdated, or irrelevant to the legal issue.
The court stated it suspected that the citations or ‘findspots’ surfaced via ChatGPT or a comparable search tool and were incorporated into the pleadings without verification.
The court treated these citations as unreliable for the claimants’ arguments.
II. Conduct Analysis
A party relied on inaccurate or irrelevant case-law citations; the court suspected the references were obtained through ChatGPT or a similar tool and copied into submissions without checking.
III. Legal Foundations
Applicable procedural rules and judicial ethics codes.
IV. Key Facts
1) The claimants relied on multiple Supreme Court case-law references to support legal propositions.
2) The court found several citations misdated, not traceable under the cited ECLI, or unrelated to the legal issues.
3) The court suspected the ‘findspots’ were surfaced via ChatGPT or a comparable search tool and copied into pleadings without control.
V. Consequences & Sanction
1) The court gave no weight to the suspected ChatGPT-sourced citations.
2) The decision describes no separate procedural sanction for the citation issue.