G.M. v. A.I. S.p.A.
Trib. Ferrara · Mar 4, 2026
- Jurisdiction
- international
- Court
- Trib. Ferrara
- Record ID
- g-m-v-a-i-s-p-a-2026-03-04
- Observed outcome
- The petition was declared inadmissible, and the petitioner was ordered to pay legal costs of 1,780.00 EUR plus statutory additions.
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
Why this matter warrants attention
The court declared the petition inadmissible and ordered the petitioner to pay the respondent's legal fees. The judge explicitly rejected the ChatGPT-generated document as evidence, citing its unreliability, the lack of human verification, and the irrelevance of the cited case law.
Misrepresented: Case Law | ChatGPT output cited 'sent. n. 3890/2016' as relevant; court found that decision concerned opposition to enforcement acts and was not pertinent to the case. || Misrepresented: Case Law | ChatGPT output cited 'sent. n. 17685/2019' as relevant; court found that, although that decision concerned a vehicle collision, its content was not conferent with the present matter.
This record documents a Lawyer filing issue in Trib. Ferrara, with the listed outcome: no adjudicated outcome recorded.
Failure modes and consequences
- Misrepresented Authority
- Trial
- None Adjudicated
- AI attribution
- Admitted
- Recorded tool
- ChatGPT
- Known monetary consequence
- Not recorded
- Procedural posture
- The matter was a petition for preventive technical consultation (Consulenza Tecnica Preventiva) under art. 696-bis c.p.c., which the court declared inadmissible.
Damien Charlotin case archive
Publisher document archive. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive.
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 court identified the tool as ChatGPT.
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.
Latest evidence review: Primary Document Verified (high confidence).
Controls suggested by the public record
- Confirm that every authority actually supports the proposition for which it is offered.