Tallinn Administrative Court Fined 10 People for Submitting False References Generated by Artificial Intelligence

Tallinn Administrative Court imposed fines on ten plaintiffs who submitted a document created with artificial intelligence to the court, which contained references to non-existent scientists and academic papers. The Supreme Court refused to accept the case for cassation proceedings this week, and the fine became final. This is the first known case in Estonia where a court has imposed a fine for careless use of artificial intelligence.

Tallinn Administrative Court has fined ten plaintiffs who submitted a document compiled with artificial intelligence to challenge a forest logging permit, which referenced fictitious academic works by non-existent Estonian scientists. The Supreme Court refused to accept the case for cassation proceedings this week, and the fine became final.

How the deception was uncovered

The plaintiffs appealed to the administrative court to challenge a clear-felling permit and submitted a procedural document containing references to academic works on the consequences of clear-felling. The court discovered that the referenced Estonian scientists did not actually exist and their academic works could not be found.

The court demanded clarification from the plaintiffs regarding the preparation of the document, gave them the opportunity to submit the referenced works as written evidence, and warned that a fine could be imposed for misleading the court. The plaintiffs responded that the use of artificial intelligence was not prohibited and they did not intend to deceive the court.

Fines and court reasoning

The administrative court imposed a fine of 150 euros on one plaintiff and 50 euros each on the remaining nine. The court explained that although the use of artificial intelligence is not prohibited, it is common knowledge that it can provide misleading or even false information. According to law, plaintiffs themselves are responsible for the truthfulness of the statements they present to the court.

The administrative court emphasized: if a plaintiff references academic sources, they must be convinced that those sources actually exist and contain the alleged information. The law allows the court to impose a fine of up to 3,200 euros on a party to the proceedings, but must take into account the person's financial situation, the nature of the violation, and other circumstances.

Tallinn Circuit Court, which reviewed the appeal against the fine, agreed with the administrative court's decision and explained that the purpose of the fine was to respond to the violation committed and prevent similar cases in the future.

Judge warns artificial intelligence users

Kaupo Kruusvee, head judge of Tallinn Administrative Court, commented sharply on the case. "Unfortunately, the quality of legal advice offered by artificial intelligence and its reliability as an information source still leave much to be desired," he said. "Responses generated by artificial intelligence appear sufficiently convincing at first glance, and if parties to proceedings do not treat sources with sufficient criticism, they may present to the court at least a legally inadequate position, or in the worst case, outright false information."

Kruusvee added that in some cases the use of artificial intelligence in documents is obvious, in other cases its detection requires more work, but in any case it creates much additional work for courts in verifying the accuracy of the information presented.

The judge explained that administrative court proceedings do not expect people to have profound legal knowledge; it is sufficient if they describe their life problem and desired solution. "Therefore, in the interests of both the parties to the proceedings themselves and the court's workload, it would be better if they did not submit confusing documents generated by artificial intelligence to the court, but instead appealed directly and in their own words," Kruusvee emphasized.

Estonian courts have previously warned parties to proceedings against careless use of artificial intelligence, but no other known cases exist where someone has been fined for it.