Beschluss 2-13 S 56/24
LG Frankfurt a. M. · Sep 25, 2025
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- LG Frankfurt a. M.
- Record ID
- beschluss-2-13-s-5624-2025-09-25
- Observed outcome
- None Adjudicated
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
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 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.
It is a useful, source-linked European record, but also demonstrates the need to separate searchable metadata from details that require the complete order.
Failure modes and consequences
- Fabricated Quotes
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Not Established
- Recorded tool
- Unidentified
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- Procedural posture is not separately recorded in the current dataset.
rv.hessenrecht.hessen.de
Secondary or other linked source. The recorded link is not classified as an official court source or docket mirror.
Open underlying sourceA recorded source link is not a substitute for checking the underlying order, filing, opinion, or disciplinary record.
What this record does—and does not—establish
The current record does not establish a specific AI tool. Do not infer AI use beyond the source.
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.
Latest evidence review: Metadata Only (medium confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Link directly to the Hessian court database rather than relying on commentary.
- Do not name a tool or a sanction unless the full decision supports it.
- Refresh the summary when the full text can be extracted or independently reviewed.