Which source supports this ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814 summary?

The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; review the linked material and subsequent docket history before relying on this summary.

HomeCasesECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814

Evidence review: primary document verified. The linked primary document was extracted and checked with page-level evidence locators.

Evidence-linked corpus record: this page is generated from the structured public record and has a publication-readiness score of 95/100. It passes the current publication gate; that is not a legal-editorial review or a guarantee that every field has been independently verified.

Corpus matter record

ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814

Rechtbank Noord-Nederland · Nov 19, 2025

Netherlands Editorial impact: low fake citations misrepresented authority contract trial None Adjudicated

Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The court identified that the plaintiff's counsel submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law, likely generated by ChatGPT, which failed to support the legal arguments. The court explicitly flagged these citations as unreliable and warned against the unverified use of AI tools in legal filings.

Why the court cared: Fabricated: Case Law | Pleitnota verwees naar een door de advocaat/geëxposeerde Hoge Raad-arrest aangeduid als 'HR 19 december 2003' en ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AL8444 (NJ 2004/75); rechtbank constateert datumverschil (5-12-2003), ECLI niet terugvindbaar en voorgestelde rechtsregel ontbreekt. || Misrepresented: Case Law | Pleitnota noemde 'NJ 1996/273' aangeduid als arrest van 22 december 1995; rechtbank merkt op dat het gaat om een Arubaanse zaak van 8 december 1995, niet relevant voor verdelingskwesties en onjuist gepresenteerd. || Fabricated: Other | Rechtbank vermoedt dat meerdere vindplaatsen via ChatGPT of vergelijkbare zoekmachine zijn opgedoken en zonder controle in de processtukken zijn overgenomen.
Why it matters now: Dutch courts are cross-checking ECLI numbers and flagging ChatGPT-sourced citations — verify every ECLI on rechtspraak.nl.

Why this matter is tracked

In a civil dispute regarding the division of an estate, the Rechtbank Noord-Nederland identified that the plaintiff's counsel submitted a pleading containing fabricated and misrepresented case law. The court noted that citations, including a purported Hoge Raad judgment (ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AL8444), were either non-existent, misdated, or irrelevant to the legal issues presented. The court explicitly suspected that these citations were generated via ChatGPT or a similar AI tool and included in the filings without verification. While the court rejected the plaintiff's primary claims regarding the division of property, it partially granted a subsidiary claim for payment. The court emphasized the necessity of verifying all legal authorities against official sources like rechtspraak.nl to prevent the submission of AI-hallucinated content.

Operational lesson

Dutch courts are cross-checking ECLI numbers and flagging ChatGPT-sourced citations — verify every ECLI on rechtspraak.nl.

Record details

CourtRechtbank Noord-Nederland

Jurisdictioninternational

CircuitNot recorded

DateNov 19, 2025

AI toolChatGPT

Party typeLawyer

OutcomeThe court rejected the primary claim for annulment of the division but granted a subsidiary claim for payment of €30,000.00, plus interest.

Known amount€30,000

Professional sanctionNo

Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

implied

The court explicitly mentions the use of ChatGPT-jurisprudence.

Procedural posture

Civil proceedings concerning the division of an estate and a claim for property valuation adjustment.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

Fabricated: Case Law | Pleitnota verwees naar een door de advocaat/geëxposeerde Hoge Raad-arrest aangeduid als 'HR 19 december 2003' en ECLI:NL:HR:2003:AL8444 (NJ 2004/75); rechtbank constateert datumverschil (5-12-2003), ECLI niet terugvindbaar en voorgestelde rechtsregel ontbreekt.
Misrepresented: Case Law | Pleitnota noemde 'NJ 1996/273' aangeduid als arrest van 22 december 1995; rechtbank merkt op dat het gaat om een Arubaanse zaak van 8 december 1995, niet relevant voor verdelingskwesties en onjuist gepresenteerd.
Fabricated: Other | Rechtbank vermoedt dat meerdere vindplaatsen via ChatGPT of vergelijkbare zoekmachine zijn opgedoken en zonder controle in de processtukken zijn overgenomen.

Questions this record answers

What happened in ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814?: The court identified that the plaintiff's counsel submitted fabricated and misrepresented case law, likely generated by ChatGPT, which failed to support the legal arguments. The court explicitly flagged these citations as unreliable and warned against the unverified use of AI tools in legal filings.
Why does ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814 matter for legal AI risk?: Dutch courts are cross-checking ECLI numbers and flagging ChatGPT-sourced citations — verify every ECLI on rechtspraak.nl.
What does the public record establish about ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814?: Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.
Which source supports this ECLI:NL:RBNNE:2025:4814 summary?: The recorded source is Damien Charlotin case archive. It is classified as publisher document archive; 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.

Matter of ZarehSC New York · Feb 10, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Lexos Media IP, LLC v. Overstock.com, Inc.D. Kansas · Feb 2, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: ChatGPT N.Z. et al. v. Fenix International Ltd. et al. (OnlyFans)C.D. California · Sep 12, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: ChatGPT ByoPlanet International v. Johansson and GilstrapS.D. Florida · Aug 1, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Coronavirus Reporter Corporation v. Apple Inc.N.D. California · Jul 30, 2025fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: ChatGPT Mata v. Avianca, IncS.D. New York · Jun 22, 2023fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: ChatGPT

Linked evidence record

Damien Charlotin case archive

Publisher document archive
The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.

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 statusprimary document verified

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 Rechtbank Noord-Nederland profile Explore jurisdiction

Evidence boundary

Retained unchanged after audit: the existing summary is source-specific, non-placeholder, and supported by the recorded source link. Read the underlying source before relying on it for legal advice or a filing.

Read methodology