Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

Dutch Council of State upholds Maastricht University fraud sanction on a law student whose assignment cited non-existent sources the university attributed to AI

On 11 December 2025 an examination board at Maastricht University found that a European Law School student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment whose purpose was to find and correctly cite legal sources. The board said three of the four sources contained wrong journals, years, titles and page numbers, that the sources did not exist, and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI; it concluded the student had made unauthorised use of AI. The sanction was a formal warning in the student's file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit. The student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool had been used, that she was never asked whether she had used AI, and that the errors came from completing the work in a hurry from memory and notes with a poor internet connection. The university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal on 5 March 2026, and on 12 August 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State dismissed her further appeal and her claim for damages for reputational and psychological harm.

AI system: Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)
Occurred: 11 Dec 2025
Reported: 12 August 2026
Event location: Netherlands

What the AI did: Relation unknown
Reported harm: Educational Harm

Whose AI use: AI role unknown
Setting: Education · Justice

Evidence: AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution supported · 1 source; 5 claims: 5 documented. 2 open questions
People reported harmed: 1 person

AI system as recorded: No AI tool is named. The examination board inferred from non-existent and garbled source citations that the assignment had been generated with AI; no detection tool or technical analysis was used

What Happened

The assignment and the sanction. The weekly assignment asked students to find sources for a later task, cite them according to the legal citation guide and summarise them. The examiner reported a suspicion of fraud. In its decision of 11 December 2025 the examination board concluded that the errors went beyond human error, that the student could not adequately explain why the sources were wrong or could not be found, and that she had made unauthorised use of artificial intelligence. The sanction was a formal warning in her student file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit.

The basis. In its submission to the university's examination appeals board, the examination board said the suspicion concerned AI use in three of the four sources, which named a different journal or edition, a different publication year, an incomplete title and different page numbers from existing articles, and that the sources did not exist and their presentation pointed to AI. The appeals board held on 5 March 2026 that the examination board had shown with high probability that the work was AI-generated and that dyslexia could not explain errors such as titles that did not match the journals.

The student's case. She argued that no technical analysis was carried out, no AI-detection tool was used, no other direct evidence of AI generation was produced and she was never asked whether she had used AI; that incorrect citations are not fraud; and that she had completed the assignment under time pressure with a poor internet connection, relying on memory and notes on her phone. She sought damages, saying the accusation and the note in her file caused her reputational and psychological harm.

The ruling. On 12 August 2026 a single-judge chamber of the Council of State's Administrative Jurisdiction Division found that the investigation was not careless merely because no technical means were used, that the correct standard (beyond reasonable doubt) had been applied, and that the formal warning was not disproportionate. It dismissed the appeal and the damages claim.

What is not established. Whether the student used an AI tool, and which one, is not established beyond the university's inference, which the Council of State upheld.

Reported harm

The student received a formal fraud warning in her file, had all assessment components of the course invalidated and was excluded from the resit after the university attributed non-existent sources to AI; the Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her claim of reputational and psychological harm (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720).

Outcome

Resolved

The Council of State's Administrative Jurisdiction Division dismissed the student's appeal and her claim for damages on 12 August 2026 (ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720), leaving in place the formal warning, the invalidation of the course's assessment components and the exclusion from the resit.

What remains unknown

Whether the student used an AI tool, and which one.
When the assignment was submitted; the ruling dates only the examination board's decision.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: suspected. The harm is the university's sanction for suspected AI use: its examination board concluded from non-existent and garbled citations in three of four sources that the student had made unauthorised use of AI and imposed a formal warning, invalidated the course's assessments and excluded her from the resit, and the Council of State upheld that decision on 12 August 2026. No detection tool or technical analysis was used and the student offered a different explanation, so AI use is recorded as suspected and the relation as unknown under the consequential-response exemption.

5 claims: 5 documented. What the statuses mean

Documented On 11 December 2025 the examination board found that the student had committed fraud in a weekly assignment and had made unauthorised use of AI, and imposed a formal warning in her student file, invalidation of all assessment components of the course and exclusion from the resit.

Causal attribution. Recorded in the Council of State's ruling.

data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'Bij beslissing van 11 december 2025 heeft de examencommissie zich op het standpunt gesteld dat'; 'ongeoorloofd gebruik gemaakt van kunstmatige intelligentie (hierna: AI)'; 'houdt in dat er een formele waarschuwing wordt opgenomen in haar studentendossier, dat alle toetsonderdelen van het vak ongeldig worden verklaard'; 'niet mag deelnemen aan de herkansing van het vak'

Documented The examination board based the finding on three of four cited sources that named a different journal or edition, year, incomplete title or page numbers from existing articles; it said the sources did not exist and that the way they were included pointed to the use of AI. The Council of State's ruling records that the investigation was not carried out with technical means; the student argued that no technical analysis or AI-detection tool was used.

Causal attribution. The board's reasoning and the absence of a detection tool are recorded in the ruling; the AI use itself is the board's inference.

data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'de verdenking van fraude ziet op het gebruik van AI in drie van de vier bronnen bij de opdracht'; 'weergegeven bronnen bestaan niet en de manier waarop deze zijn opgenomen in de opdracht duidt op het gebruik van AI'; 'Er is geen technische analyse verricht, er is geen AI-detectietool ingezet'; 'omdat het onderzoek naar de vermeende fraude niet met behulp van technische middelen is verricht'

Documented The student argued that she was never asked whether she had used AI and that she completed the assignment under time pressure with a poor internet connection, relying on memory and notes.

Causal attribution. The ruling documents that the student made these arguments, not their truth.

data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'Verder is nooit aan haar gevraagd of zij gebruik heeft gemaakt van AI.'; 'heeft de opdracht afgerond in tijdnood en haar internetverbinding was op dat moment slecht.'

Documented On 5 March 2026 the university's examination appeals board rejected her appeal, holding that the examination board had shown with high probability that the work was AI-generated.

Causal attribution. Recorded in the ruling.

data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'De examencommissie heeft met hoge waarschijnlijkheid aangetoond dat het ingediende werk door kunstmatige intelligentie is gegenereerd.'; 'Bij beslissing van 5 maart 2026 heeft het CBE het door'

Documented On 12 August 2026 the Council of State dismissed her appeal and her claim for damages, in which she said the accusation and the note in her file caused her reputational and psychological harm.

Causal attribution. The dismissal is documented; the reputational and psychological harm is the student's claim as recorded in the ruling.

data.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'Datum uitspraak: 12 augustus 2026'; 'verklaart het beroep ongegrond;'; 'wijst het verzoek om schadevergoeding af.'; 'Door de beschuldiging en de aantekening leidt zij reputatieschade en psychische schade.'

Sources

1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

Council of State (Netherlands), ruling ECLI:NL:RVS:2026:4720, case 202601147/1/A2, 12 August 2026(opens in new tab)
s1 · data.rechtspraak.nl · Court record · Dutch · Inspected · 12 August 2026 · Primary

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in full in Dutch and translated by the research agent (an AI); no human translation. Applies to s1.

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

The assignment, sanction and appeals concern Maastricht University and the Council of State in the Netherlands, as the ruling states. The student's own country is not stated; the use of an interpreter at the hearing does not establish it.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-16: Published as an institution's consequential response to suspected AI use: Maastricht University sanctioned a student for fraud after attributing non-existent sources to AI without a detection tool, and the Dutch Council of State upheld the sanction and rejected her damages claim. The facts rest on the published ruling.

People described

A law student at Maastricht University sanctioned for fraud after an assignment cited sources the university said were AI-generated

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

0 AI participants · 1 other person harmed

One sanctioned student (ruling). She is counted under other people harmed because her use of AI is the university's inference and is not established.

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

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). Dutch Council of State upholds Maastricht University fraud sanction on a law student whose assignment cited non-existent sources the university attributed to AI. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-maastricht-university-ai-fraud-sanction-over-nonexistent-sources-upheld-by-dutch-council-of-state

BibTeX

@misc{2025_maastricht_university_ai_fraud_sanction_over_nonexistent_sources_upheld_by_dutch_council_of_state,
  title = {Dutch Council of State upholds Maastricht University fraud sanction on a law student whose assignment cited non-existent sources the university attributed to AI},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-maastricht-university-ai-fraud-sanction-over-nonexistent-sources-upheld-by-dutch-council-of-state}
}

St Andrews medical student says a marker's suspicion of AI use led to an upheld misconduct finding, overturned at a second hearing after appeal

The BBC reported on 10 August 2026 that a University of St Andrews medical student received an academic misconduct alert in August of the previous year saying his dissertation had been flagged as AI-generated. According to the university, the dissertation was assessed by two human markers, one of whom raised concerns about possible AI use; the marker's notes, seen by the BBC, cite a polished, uniform tone, flawless grammar, formulaic paragraph structure and frequent dashes. The student says the link to his virtual hearing arrived five minutes after the start time. A week after the hearing the allegations were upheld, which capped his mark at a bare pass. The university accepted his appeal because of the late link, and at a second hearing in mid-November it did not uphold the allegations. He later received his full mark. The student says he was consumed by worries throughout that semester, that he deferred his exams and that his graduation was delayed until December. The university says the appeal succeeded solely on a procedural issue. The report describes no AI-detection tool, and the student says he did not use AI.

Low Unidentified AI writing tool (suspected)

A University of Houston-Downtown senior was given an F in a music appreciation course after the professor claimed journal entries and discussion posts were AI-generated; two appeals failed before a student discipline committee overturned the finding

FOX 26 Houston reported on 2 October 2026 that a senior studying business management at the University of Houston-Downtown received an F in a music appreciation course 'last August' after the professor claimed the student had submitted several journal entries and discussion posts 'determined to be copy and pasted AI generated'. The student appealed. The professor and then the department chair denied the appeal, and a student discipline committee of four deans ruled in the student's favour. The station quotes the decision as based on concerns about the reliability and consistency of the evidence used to support the original finding. The report does not say how the work was determined to be AI-generated or whether a detection tool was used. The student described being shocked and incensed by the grade and relieved by the outcome.

High Grok and Stability AI tools (reported)

Tennessee minors v. xAI: three girls say a man one of them knew used an AI app to make nude images and video of them and other minors, at least 19 in all, and traded them online; they sued xAI, and later also Stability AI, over the tool

Three Tennessee girls, two still minors, sued xAI in the Northern District of California on 16 March 2026 over AI-generated nude images and a video made of them as minors. According to the complaint, on or about 6 December 2025 an anonymous Instagram user sent one of them sexual AI images of herself made from her own photos, including her homecoming and yearbook pictures, and a link to a Discord server created by a person she knew, which held images and videos of at least 18 other minor girls, including the two other plaintiffs, many from her school. Local police arrested the man in late December 2025; the other two plaintiffs learned from investigators in February 2026 that he had made nude images of them, and he is alleged to have traded the files on Telegram and Mega. The plaintiffs describe anxiety, sleeplessness, nightmares, self-isolation and needing academic accommodations. Their first complaint said law enforcement linked the app he used to xAI's Grok technology; the July amended complaint says the app relied on Stability AI's tools and names Stability AI as a defendant. The case is at an early stage and no court has ruled on the allegations.

Medium Turnitin AI-text detector

Adelphi accused Orion Newby of AI plagiarism after a detector flagged his paper; a Nassau County judge ordered the finding expunged

Orion Newby, an Adelphi University first-year student with language and auditory processing disabilities, received a zero in November 2024 on a World Civilizations paper after the professor suspected it was AI-generated and the university relied in part on AI-detection software; he was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop and his appeal was denied, leaving him one finding from suspension or expulsion. Newby — who had written the paper with 15-20 hours of tutor support through the university's own disability program — said the detectors flagged his citations, and two other detectors scored the paper as human. After the family sued, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled on 28 January 2026 that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered his record expunged. The family spent six figures on legal costs.

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