Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

Dutch sub-district judge used ChatGPT to estimate solar-panel lifespan and power prices in a neighbour dispute, then rejected the homeowner's damages claim

A homeowner in the Netherlands sued his neighbour, whose permitted roof extension shaded his solar panels, claiming more than 21,000 euros for lost yield and investment. In a judgment of 7 June 2024 (ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636), the sub-district judge of the Rechtbank Gelderland, sitting in Nijmegen, held that the neighbour had to bear half of the damage and then calculated the damage, estimating the average lifespan of solar panels from 2009 and the current average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, as the judgment states. Using a lifespan of 27.5 years, about 15 remaining years and a price of 0.30 euros per kWh, the judge put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage at 3,323.40 euros; half of that was less than the 3,300 euros the neighbour had offered, so the claim was rejected and the homeowner, who had refused the offer, received nothing and was ordered to pay costs. On the neighbour's counterclaim, the judge assumed, again partly with ChatGPT, that insulation material the homeowner had thrown into water was no longer usable, and ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total. The judgment does not say what was asked or answered, and whether it was appealed is not reported.

AI system
ChatGPT
Occurred
7 Jun 2024
Reported
26 July 2024
Event location
Netherlands
What the AI did
Informed a human decision about the person
Reported harm
Legal HarmFinancial Loss
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Justice · Everyday life
Evidence
AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
4 claims: 4 documented. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: ChatGPT, which the judgment says was used, together with other reasoning, to estimate the lifespan of solar panels, the average electricity price and whether water-damaged insulation was still usable

What Happened

The dispute. Two neighbours own attached houses. The claimant had solar panels installed on his roof in mid-2009. At the end of 2021 or the start of 2022 his neighbour built a permitted roof extension that shaded the panels. The claimant said the yield fell by 77% and claimed 13,963.20 euros for 20 years of lost yield plus 7,950.60 euros for the lost value of his investment; he also refused the builders further access to his roof.

The use of ChatGPT. The sub-district judge found that the neighbour had to compensate half of the damage. Finding the claimant's own calculation hard to follow, the judge made an estimate: 'mede met behulp van ChatGPT' (partly with the help of ChatGPT) the judge put the average lifespan of 2009 panels at 25 to 30 years, and so 27.5 years and about 15 remaining years, and 'wederom mede aan de hand van ChatGPT' (again partly on the basis of ChatGPT) an average current electricity price of 0.30 euros per kWh. That gave a yield loss of about 2,250 euros and, with a disputed subsidy loss, a maximum of 3,323.40 euros.

The outcome. Half of the maximum damage was below the 3,300 euros the neighbour had offered, so the judge found the neighbour had not acted unlawfully and rejected the claim; the claimant had refused the offer and so received nothing, and he was ordered to pay 812 euros in costs. On the neighbour's counterclaim, the judge held that the claimant had wrongly refused roof access and, 'ook weer mede aan de hand van ChatGPT', assumed that insulation material the claimant had thrown into water was no longer usable, ordering him to pay 204.66 euros for it within total damages of 2,619.02 euros. The judgment does not reproduce the prompts or answers. It was annotated in several Dutch law journals; whether it was appealed is not reported.

Reported harm

A homeowner's damages claim was rejected after the judge calculated the damage partly with ChatGPT's estimates, and the homeowner was ordered to pay costs and counterclaim damages, according to the judgment.

How Harm Occurred

The judge used ChatGPT's estimates of panel lifespan and electricity price in calculating the claimant's damage, which set the figure below the neighbour's offer and led to the rejection of the claim; a ChatGPT-assisted assumption also supported part of the damages he had to pay on the counterclaim.

Outcome

Unknown

Rechtbank Gelderland (sub-district court, Nijmegen), judgment of 7 June 2024, case 10664071 CV23-2321: the claim was rejected and the claimant ordered to pay 812 euros in costs; on the counterclaim he was ordered to pay 2,619.02 euros plus statutory interest, and the defendant was ordered to pay 609 euros in costs of the counterclaim. Whether the judgment was appealed is not reported.

What remains unknown

  • What the judge asked ChatGPT and what it answered.
  • Whether the claimant appealed and with what result.
  • How the outcome would have differed without the ChatGPT-assisted estimates; the judgment also rejected the investment claim on other grounds.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: supported. The judgment states that the judge estimated the lifespan of the claimant's solar panels and the current electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, and those figures set the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage below the level at which the neighbour's offer would have been insufficient, leading to the rejection of the claim; the judge also relied partly on ChatGPT to treat insulation material as unusable in the counterclaim. The judgment does not reproduce the questions or answers.

4 claims: 4 documented. What the statuses mean

Documented The claimant sued his neighbour for about 21,000 euros, saying the neighbour's roof extension cut the yield of his solar panels by 77%.

Causal attribution. The claimant's case as recorded in the judgment; documented as the content of his claim, not as a fact about the yield.

  • data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Volgens hem is de verminderde opbrengst van de panelen van 77%'; 'Dat leidt volgens hem tot een totale schade van € 21.385,90'
Documented The judge estimated the panels' remaining lifespan and the average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT and put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros.

Causal attribution. Stated by the court in its own judgment; the summary relays it. One origin (the judgment).

  • data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'De kantonrechter schat, mede met behulp van ChatGPT, de gemiddelde levensduur van zonnepanelen uit 2009 op 25 à 30 jaar'; 'Uitgaande, wederom mede aan de hand van ChatGPT, van een huidige gemiddelde kWh-prijs van € 0,30'; 'bedraagt het rendementsverlies, met een min of meer gelijkblijvende kWh-prijs, daarmee ongeveer € 2.250,--'
  • taxlive.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Bij de schadeberekening maakt de rechtbank ook gebruik van ChatGPT'
Documented Because half of the maximum damage of 3,323.40 euros was below the neighbour's 3,300-euro offer, which the claimant had refused, the claim was rejected and he received nothing.

Causal attribution. The court's reasoning linking the ChatGPT-assisted estimate to the rejection; documented by the judgment.

  • data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'het maximaal te begroten bedrag aan schade zou hiermee (€ 2.250,-- + € 1.073,40 =) € 3.323,40 bedragen'; 'uiteindelijk aangeboden bedrag van'; 'Er is dus in deze procedure geen grond om'; 'heeft ook geen recht op € 3.300,-, nu hij het aanbod tot het betalen van dit bedrag heeft verworpen'
  • taxlive.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Rechtbank Gelderland oordeelt dat X geen recht heeft op een schadevergoeding in verband met de door Y geplaatste dakopbouw'
Documented The judge also assumed, partly with ChatGPT, that insulation the claimant threw into water was unusable, and on the counterclaim ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total and the costs of the main claim.

Causal attribution. Stated in the judgment; the ChatGPT-assisted assumption supports only the 204.66-euro insulation item within the total.

  • data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
    'Redelijkerwijs – en ook weer mede aan de hand van ChatGPT – valt aan te nemen dat dit materiaal daardoor niet meer bruikbaar was'; 'wegens schadevergoeding te betalen'; '€ 2.619,02, vermeerderd met de wettelijke rente'

Sources

2 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Full text of the judgment of 7 June 2024 from the Rechtspraak open-data service (published 26 July 2024); HTTP 200, read in full. Applies to s1.

Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Taxlive V-N Vandaag summary of the same judgment, edition 12 August 2024; HTTP 200, read in full. Applies to s2.

Event countries: Netherlands. Affected-person countries: Netherlands. Court countries: Netherlands.

The dispute concerns two attached houses whose owners also live in them, decided by the Rechtbank Gelderland sitting in Nijmegen; the street and town are anonymised in the published judgment, which applies Dutch law and Dutch subsidies.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-24: Published as an AI-informed decision: in a judgment of 7 June 2024 a Dutch sub-district judge stated that the estimates of a homeowner's solar-panel lifespan and electricity prices were made partly with ChatGPT, and the resulting damage figure led to the rejection of the homeowner's claim against his neighbour. The facts come from the judgment itself.

People described

A homeowner whose claim against his neighbour for lost solar-panel yield was rejected

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

The claimant homeowner, whose claim was rejected in the judgment. The neighbour won the counterclaim and is not counted.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#court#judge-ai-use#chatgpt#damages#netherlands

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Dutch sub-district judge used ChatGPT to estimate solar-panel lifespan and power prices in a neighbour dispute, then rejected the homeowner's damages claim. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2024-gelderland-sub-district-judge-used-chatgpt-to-estimate-solar-panel-damages-in-neighbour-dispute-and-rejected-claim

BibTeX

@misc{2024_gelderland_sub_district_judge_used_chatgpt_to_estimate_solar_panel_damages_in_neighbour_dispute_and_rejected_claim,
  title = {Dutch sub-district judge used ChatGPT to estimate solar-panel lifespan and power prices in a neighbour dispute, then rejected the homeowner's damages claim},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2024-gelderland-sub-district-judge-used-chatgpt-to-estimate-solar-panel-damages-in-neighbour-dispute-and-rejected-claim}
}

Related cases

Low ChatGPT (reported)

Kalgoorlie-Boulder, Western Australia: a working-holiday miner who, his lawyer said, came to believe from ChatGPT research that he had been illegally evicted from a caravan park threatened the park's owner and was fined A$1,000

A 21-year-old French national working as an underground miner in Kalgoorlie-Boulder on a working holiday visa pleaded guilty in Kalgoorlie Magistrates Court to making a threat to unlawfully do an act. The prosecutor said he saw the owner of the caravan park where he had stayed in a supermarket, waited outside, called him over for a fight in the car park and, when the owner declined, told him 'I really want to f… you up' and 'if I see you, I'll f… you up'. The owner and his wife drove to Kalgoorlie police station to report it. His defence lawyer told the court that he had been locked out of the park without his belongings, had done research using ChatGPT and came to believe that he had been unfairly and illegally evicted. The magistrate called the behaviour 'absolutely appalling', fined him A$1,000 and granted a spent conviction. The court was told the matter could make his application for permanent residency in Australia difficult. ChatGPT's replies are not published, and the AI connection rests on the defence submission as reported by one newsroom.

Medium ChatGPT

Brasília labour court upholds the for-cause dismissal of a manager it found used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest an iFood customer's complaint

In a judgment of 30 July 2026, the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília (Regional Labour Court of the 10th Region) upheld the dismissal for cause, on 19 March 2026, of a manager hired in June 2024. The employer said he had used artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood delivery app. A witness told the court she saw him use ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order, in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, so that it appeared complete, and use it to contest the customer's complaint to iFood support. The judge found this an act of dishonesty and misconduct that broke the trust required of a manager, rejected his claim that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for a claim he had filed the day before, dismissed all his claims, denied severance items and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees, suspended because he was granted free legal aid. The legal news site Migalhas reported the judgment on 3 August 2026. No appeal is reported.

Medium ChatGPT

New Mexico Supreme Court fines attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and removes him from a murder appeal over ChatGPT-fabricated testimony

Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs

On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents