Why does Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 matter for legal AI risk?

It is a useful, source-linked European record, but also demonstrates the need to separate searchable metadata from details that require the complete order.

Which source supports this Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 summary?

The recorded source is rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCasesBeschluss 2-13 S 56/24

Evidence review: metadata only. The linked page is generic, shared, or insufficiently case-specific. This page therefore preserves only the structured corpus baseline.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 81/100. It is publicly indexable with its documented evidence gaps stated on-page; the linked source and evidence boundary remain controlling.

Corpus matter record

Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24

LG Frankfurt a. M. · Sep 25, 2025

Germany Editorial impact: low fabricated quotes trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

Why the court cared: The retrieved public materials characterize the order as addressing AI-hallucinated BGH quotations in a procedural dispute. They do not provide enough extracted text here to summarize the court’s complete reasoning safely.
Why it matters now: It is a useful, source-linked European record, but also demonstrates the need to separate searchable metadata from details that require the complete order.

Why this matter is tracked

Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 is a September 25, 2025 decision of the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, published through the Hessian legal database. Public case metadata and legal-database summaries identify the matter as involving alleged AI hallucinations of German Federal Court of Justice decisions in a lawyer’s written submission. The retrieved directory material identifies the case number, court, date, and procedural lineage from the Amtsgericht Gelnhausen, and characterizes the issue as non-existent or inaccurate BGH quotations. It also indicates that the dispute was procedural and connected to the value in controversy rather than a reported merits holding on AI. The official database URL is the appropriate source for the decision. Because the full-text order was not programmatically available in this pass, this enrichment does not attribute a particular AI tool, assert a disciplinary sanction, or reconstruct judicial reasoning beyond the published case characterization.

Operational lesson

Verbatim quotes from high courts must be checked against the original before use.

Record details

CourtLG Frankfurt a. M.

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateSep 25, 2025

AI toolUnidentified

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeSee source

Known amountNot recorded

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.

Procedural posture

Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

1 citation, quotation, or authority issues are recorded in the source dataset.

False Quotes: Case Law | verbatim quotations from the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) that did not even exist

Questions this record answers

What happened in Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24?: Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 is a September 25, 2025 decision of the Regional Court of Frankfurt am Main, published through the Hessian legal database. Public case metadata and legal-database summaries identify the matter as involving alleged AI hallucinations of German Federal Court of Justice decisions in a lawyer’s written submission. The retrieved directory material identifies the case number, court, date, and procedural lineage from the Amtsgericht Gelnhausen, and characterizes the issue as non-existent or inaccurate BGH quotations. It also indicates that the dispute was procedural and connected to the value in controversy rather than a reported merits holding on AI.…
Why does Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 matter for legal AI risk?: It is a useful, source-linked European record, but also demonstrates the need to separate searchable metadata from details that require the complete order.
What does the public record establish about Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24?: The official database page and directories establish case identity and topic. The full reasons were not retrieved in this pass, so detailed quotation, intent, and outcome claims remain outside this summary.
Which source supports this Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24 summary?: The recorded source is rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de. It is classified as secondary or other linked source; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

Related matters

Related by court, jurisdiction, tool, or classified failure pattern. Similarity does not imply the same facts or outcome.

Falkenstein v. NilesC.D. California · Sep 3, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co.N.D. Georgia · Aug 28, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Varma v. The Bank of New York MellonCal. Ct. App., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2 · Aug 27, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Krystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al.E.D. Michigan · Aug 26, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Solicitors Regulation Authority Ltd v Abhishek KumarSolicitors Disciplinary Tribunal · Aug 25, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified Egan v Commonwealth of AustraliaFederal Court · Aug 11, 2026fabricated quotes + trial · same recorded tool: Unidentified

Linked evidence record

rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de

Secondary or other linked source
The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.

Open recorded source Suggest a correction to this record

Public-record statuspublic record, not an allegation-only entry

Indexing eligibilitypublicly indexable with evidence status disclosed

Evidence-review statusmetadata only

Published and maintained byManu Ayala · AI VortexIndependent legal AI risk intelligence

Evidence review recorded Jul 27, 2026

Source host classified Attribution boundary stated Limitations disclosed

Corpus checked Sep 10, 2026; latest tracked decision Sep 8, 2026. AI Vortex summarizes public records and does not replace the court document or legal research service.

Use this record

Open case brief Open LG Frankfurt a. M. profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

The official database page and directories establish case identity and topic. The full reasons were not retrieved in this pass, so detailed quotation, intent, and outcome claims remain outside this summary.

Read methodology