AI VORTEXLEGAL AI RISK
AI visibilityConsultingSearch free
Public trackerCorpus refreshed Sep 10, 2026 · Latest decision Sep 8, 2026Public incidents are risk signals, not usage-adjusted rates
HomeCasesKIO 3342/25
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 85/100. 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

KIO 3342/25

Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza · Oct 17, 2025

PolandEditorial impact: lowfake citationsmisrepresented authoritytrialNone Adjudicated
Direct answer

What happened in this matter?

The Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (KIO) invalidated procurement selection decisions and ordered the exclusion or rejection of offers containing fabricated tax interpretations and erroneous VAT classifications, which the tribunal identified as likely AI-generated misrepresentations.

Why the court cared
The record concerns whether authorities presented to the decision-maker existed and could be verified. The tracked outcome is Exclusion from procurement; the linked source controls the precise reasoning.
Why it matters now
This case illustrates the risks of AI-generated hallucinations in formal procurement submissions, specifically regarding fabricated legal citations and incorrect tax classifications, leading to the exclusion of bidders and the invalidation of tender results.

Why this matter is tracked

In a procurement dispute before the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (KIO), the tribunal addressed multiple appeals regarding public road maintenance tenders. The Izba identified that certain submissions contained fabricated tax interpretations and misattributed VAT rates, which were likely generated by an unidentified AI tool. The tribunal found these submissions to be misleading and erroneous. Consequently, the Izba ordered the contracting authority to invalidate previous selection decisions, repeat the evaluation process, and in specific instances, exclude or reject the non-compliant offers. The decision emphasizes the necessity for rigorous verification of all technical and legal data submitted in procurement proceedings to ensure compliance with statutory requirements and fair competition standards.

Operational lesson

This case illustrates the risks of AI-generated hallucinations in formal procurement submissions, specifically regarding fabricated legal citations and incorrect tax classifications, leading to the exclusion of bidders and the invalidation of tender results.

Record details

CourtKrajowa Izba Odwoławcza
Jurisdictioninternational
CircuitNot recorded
DateOct 17, 2025
UN
AI toolUnidentified
Party typeExpert
OutcomeThe tribunal ordered the invalidation of selection decisions, the exclusion of specific bidders, and the repetition of tender evaluation processes.
Known amountNot recorded
Professional sanctionNo
Attribution boundary

What the record establishes about AI use

not established

The tribunal identified submissions as likely AI-generated but did not name a specific tool.

Procedural posture

Adjudicated procurement appeal before the Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (KIO) resulting in a final judgment (Wyrok) dated October 17, 2025.

Correction behavior

Correction behavior is not separately verified in the current record.

Tracked discrepancy record

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

  1. Fabricated: Exhibits & Submissions | Submission included invented individual tax interpretations cited to specific reference numbers which could not be found; the Izba found these references to be false and likely AI-generated.
  2. Misrepresented: Legal Norm | The submission repeated an incorrect PKWiU code and misattributed a reduced 8% VAT rate to services where that classification was erroneous; the court treated these assertions as misleading/misrepresentations in the explanations.

Questions this record answers

What happened in KIO 3342/25?
The Krajowa Izba Odwoławcza (KIO) invalidated procurement selection decisions and ordered the exclusion or rejection of offers containing fabricated tax interpretations and erroneous VAT classifications, which the tribunal identified as likely AI-generated misrepresentations.
Why does KIO 3342/25 matter for legal AI risk?
This case illustrates the risks of AI-generated hallucinations in formal procurement submissions, specifically regarding fabricated legal citations and incorrect tax classifications, leading to the exclusion of bidders and the invalidation of tender results.
What does the public record establish about KIO 3342/25?
The record summarizes the outcome described in the linked public source. The recorded document is hosted in the upstream publisher archive. This page is not a substitute for the complete docket, subsequent history, or jurisdiction-specific advice.
Which source supports this KIO 3342/25 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.

Erin Booker v. The Kroger Co.N.D. Georgia · Aug 28, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedVarma v. The Bank of New York MellonCal. Ct. App., 4th App. Dist., Div. 2 · Aug 27, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedKrystal Faye Potterf, et al. v. Drew F. Wessels, et al.E.D. Michigan · Aug 26, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedFaiz Enterprise v. State Tax Officer, Unit-67, Surat & Anr.Gujarat High Court · Aug 20, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedMendel S. v. Faigy S.Family Court New York · Jul 31, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: UnidentifiedBeslissing in de zaak 26-379/DB/LI/DRaad van Discipline · Jul 27, 2026fake citations + misrepresented authority · same recorded tool: Unidentified