Dutch court strikes out a couple's marriage record because the ChatGPT-assisted ceremony speech left out the legally required declaration
The Rechtbank Overijssel (Zwolle location) ordered on 5 January 2026 that a couple's marriage record of April 2025 be struck out of the Zwolle register of marriages, holding that no marriage had come into existence. The couple had asked an acquaintance to conduct the ceremony as a one-day special registrar, and because they wanted a light-hearted ceremony the officiant wrote the speech with the help of ChatGPT. The speech, which the court quotes, asked the partners to stand by each other and declared them 'a team', but it did not contain the declaration that Dutch civil law (article 1:67(1) of the Civil Code) requires spouses to make. The public prosecution service says it brought the case after a report from the municipality. The couple said the error was not their responsibility, that the municipal registrar present had not corrected it, and that losing their wedding date had a great emotional impact; the court refused their request to keep the original date.
- AI system
- ChatGPT
- Occurred
- Apr 2025
- Reported
- 6 January 2026
- Event location
- Netherlands
- What the AI did
- Informed a human decision about the person
- Reported harm
- Legal HarmPsychological Distress
- Whose AI use
- Someone else’s AI use
- Setting
- Relationships · Justice · Public services
- Evidence
- AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
- 5 claims: 4 documented, 1 reported. 3 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 2 people
AI system as recorded: ChatGPT, which the one-day officiant used to help write the wedding ceremony speech
What Happened
The ceremony. According to the court's findings, the man and the woman asked a person they knew to conduct their civil wedding in Zwolle in April 2025 as a one-day special registrar (eendagsbabs); a wedding registrar of the municipality was also present. Because the couple wanted a light-hearted ceremony, the officiant wrote the speech with the help of ChatGPT. The court quotes the relevant part: the partners were asked whether they would stand by each other, laugh and grow together, and were then declared 'not only husband and wife, but above all a team'. The marriage was entered in the register and in the Personal Records Database.
The court case. The public prosecutor asked the court to order the record struck out; the prosecution service told NOS it acted on a report from the municipality. Article 1:67(1) of the Dutch Civil Code requires the spouses to declare before the registrar and witnesses that they accept each other as spouses and will faithfully fulfil all duties the law attaches to marriage; the marriage is concluded by those declarations. The court held that the speech showed the man and the woman had not made that declaration, which they confirmed, and that their words lacked the same purport. No marriage had come into existence, so the record had been wrongly entered and had to be struck out.
The couple's position. The couple said the officiant's omission was outside their responsibility, that they believed the wedding was being conducted correctly, and that the municipal registrar present failed to point out the error when it could have been corrected. They said losing their wedding date had a great emotional impact and asked to keep the original date; the court said it understood the date's importance but could not set aside the law.
What is not known. The court does not say which parts of the speech ChatGPT produced, what the officiant asked it, or whether the officiant changed its text.
Reported harm
A court held that no marriage had come into existence and ordered the couple's marriage record struck out because the ChatGPT-assisted ceremony speech omitted the statutory declaration; the couple said losing their wedding date had a great emotional impact (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:23).
Outcome
UnknownOn 5 January 2026 the court granted the public prosecutor's request and ordered the Zwolle registrar to strike out the marriage record; it did not grant the couple's request to keep or have recognised the original wedding date (ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:23). An appeal was possible only through a lawyer to the Arnhem-Leeuwarden court of appeal; no appeal and no later wedding are reported in the sources read.
What remains unknown
- Which parts of the speech ChatGPT generated, what the officiant asked it, and whether the officiant edited its text.
- Whether the decision was appealed and whether the couple have since married validly.
- Whether the officiant or the municipality bore any consequence.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: supported. The court found that the one-day officiant wrote the ceremony speech with the help of ChatGPT and quotes the speech, which lacked the declaration that Dutch civil law requires spouses to make. On that text the court held that no marriage had come into existence and ordered the couple's record struck out, so the ChatGPT-assisted text informed the decision about them. The decision does not say which parts of the speech ChatGPT produced or whether the officiant edited them.
5 claims: 4 documented, 1 reported. What the statuses mean
Documented The couple asked an acquaintance to conduct their civil wedding in Zwolle in April 2025 as a one-day special registrar, with a municipal wedding registrar also present; because they wanted a light-hearted ceremony, the officiant wrote the speech with the help of ChatGPT.
Causal attribution. The court's findings from the documents and the hearing (4.8), reported by NOS.
- uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'een voor hen bekende persoon hebben gevraagd om tijdens hun ceremonie'; 'op te treden als eendagsbabs.'; 'ook een trouwambtenaar van de gemeente Zwolle aanwezig.'; 'Omdat de man en de vrouw de ceremonie graag luchtig wilden houden, heeft de eendagsbabs een toespraak geschreven met behulp van ChatGPT.'
- nos.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'schreef de eendagsbabs de toespraak met behulp van ChatGPT, staat in de beschikking'
Documented The speech asked the partners whether they would stand by each other and declared them 'not only husband and wife, but above all a team'; it did not contain the declaration required by article 1:67(1) of the Civil Code, which the couple confirmed.
Causal attribution. The speech as quoted in the decision and the court's finding (4.8, 4.9).
- uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'Niet alleen man en vrouw, maar bovenal een team, een gek stel, elkaars liefde en elkaars thuis!'; 'Uit de hiervoor uitgeschreven toespraak blijkt dat de man en de vrouw de verklaring van artikel 1:67, eerste lid, BW niet hebben afgelegd. De man en de vrouw hebben dit schriftelijk en tijdens de mondelinge behandeling bevestigd.'
Documented The court held that no marriage had come into existence and, granting the public prosecutor's request, ordered the Zwolle registrar to strike out the marriage record.
Causal attribution. The decision (4.10, 5.1).
- uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'Het gevolg is dat er geen huwelijk tussen de man en de vrouw tot stand is gekomen.'; 'gelast de ambtenaar van de burgerlijke stand van de gemeente Zwolle de akte met nummer'
- nos.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'De rechter in Zwolle heeft een huwelijk ongeldig verklaard'
Reported The prosecution brought the case after the municipality reported a possibly invalid marriage.
Causal attribution. A prosecution spokesperson's statement quoted by NOS.
- nos.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'Het OM laat weten van de gemeente een melding te hebben ontvangen dat er mogelijk sprake was van een ongeldig huwelijk.'
Documented The couple said the omission was outside their responsibility, that the municipal registrar present had failed to point out and correct the error, and that losing their wedding date had a great emotional impact; the court did not grant their request to keep the original date.
Causal attribution. The couple's position as recorded by the court (4.6) is documented as their stated position; the emotional impact is their own account. The court's refusal is 4.10.
- uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl(opens in new tab) supports · Dutch
'Zij bevestigen dat de eendagsbabs heeft verzuimd de verklaring van artikel 1:67, eerste lid, BW uit te spreken, maar die fout ligt buiten hun verantwoordelijkheid.'; 'Het verliezen van de trouwdatum heeft een grote emotionele impact.'; 'kan niet voorbijgaan aan wat in de wet staat.'
Sources
2 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- Rechtbank Overijssel, 5 January 2026, ECLI:NL:RBOVE:2026:23 (striking out of a marriage record)(opens in new tab)
s1 · uitspraken.rechtspraak.nl · Court record · Dutch · Inspected · 5 January 2026 · Shares an underlying account with another listed source · Primary
- NOS, 7 January 2026: court strikes out marriage record, officiant wrote the text with ChatGPT(opens in new tab)
s2 · nos.nl · News report · Dutch · Inspected · Shares an underlying account with another listed source
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-25 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Full anonymised text of the decision of 5 January 2026 (case C/08/336664 / FA RK 25-1979), retrieved through the rechtspraak.nl open-data content service on 2026-10-25 (HTTP 200); publication date on rechtspraak.nl 6 January 2026. The decision anonymises the couple and the officials. Applies to s1.
Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-25 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. NOS Nieuws, 7 January 2026 (credited ANP); HTTP 200, full text read. Reports the same decision, which it links, and adds a prosecution spokesperson's statement; not independent of s1 for the court's findings. Applies to s2.
Event countries: Netherlands. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Netherlands.
The decision records that the marriage was concluded in the municipality of Zwolle and entered in its register, and that the man and the woman have Dutch nationality; the court sat at its Zwolle location. Their residences are anonymised, and nationality is not used to locate them, so the affected-person countries are left unknown.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-25: Published because a court found that a ChatGPT-assisted wedding speech omitted the declaration required by Dutch law, held that no marriage had come into existence and struck out the couple's record. The account is the court's anonymised decision, read in full, with the NOS report.
People described
A couple, a man and a woman of Dutch nationality, whose civil wedding was conducted by an acquaintance acting as a one-day special registrar (not named)
People reported harmed in this case
2 people
0 AI participants · 2 other people harmed
Two people: the man and the woman whose marriage record was struck out (beschikking 4.6, 4.10). The officiant, who used ChatGPT, is not counted as harmed. Exact 2.
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 court strikes out a couple's marriage record because the ChatGPT-assisted ceremony speech left out the legally required declaration. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-zwolle-court-strikes-out-marriage-record-after-chatgpt-assisted-ceremony-speech-omitted-legal-declaration
BibTeX
@misc{2025_zwolle_court_strikes_out_marriage_record_after_chatgpt_assisted_ceremony_speech_omitted_legal_declaration,
title = {Dutch court strikes out a couple's marriage record because the ChatGPT-assisted ceremony speech left out the legally required declaration},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-zwolle-court-strikes-out-marriage-record-after-chatgpt-assisted-ceremony-speech-omitted-legal-declaration}
} Related cases
Woman's lawsuit alleges ChatGPT fed her former partner's delusions and wrote psychological reports about her that he used to harass her
A complaint filed on 9 April 2026 in San Francisco County Superior Court by a woman suing as Jane Doe alleges that GPT-4o validated her former partner's belief that he had invented a cure for sleep apnea, told him powerful forces were watching him, and, after she ended the relationship, generated dozens of clinical-style psychological reports scoring her as dishonest and abusive, which he sent to her family, friends, colleagues and clients. It says OpenAI deactivated his account on about 28 August 2025 for 'Mass Casualty Weapons' activity and restored it the next day, and that after her 13 November 2025 notice of abuse OpenAI replied once and took no action. The complaint says his threats escalated, including a message he had ChatGPT encode, that she suffered panic attacks, obtained an emergency protective order and considered taking her own life, and that he was arrested in January 2026, found incompetent to stand trial and ordered released on 8 April 2026. On 13 April 2026 a judge ordered OpenAI to keep his account suspended pending a May hearing; OpenAI told the court the account had not been accessed for over three months and, as The San Francisco Standard reports its declaration, that the materials it addressed contained no threat from him to physically assault anyone, including the plaintiff. The allegations are untested.
Pittsburgh man sentenced to 46 months for stalking and threatening 11 women; his indictment says he took ChatGPT replies as encouragement to keep harassing
A Pittsburgh man pleaded guilty in March 2026 to 11 federal counts of cyberstalking, interstate stalking and interstate threats against 11 women between May and November 2025. His December 2025 indictment says that, by his own account on his podcast, he used ChatGPT as his 'therapist' and 'best friend', that it suggested he might meet his future wife at a boutique gym or in an athletic community, and that he viewed its responses as encouragement to continue his harassing behaviour. Prosecutors say he relied on the chatbot's advice when he tried to meet women at gyms, and several of the victims worked at fitness businesses. Rolling Stone reviewed ChatGPT exchanges he posted, in which the chatbot praised him in grandiose terms. On 20 October 2026 a federal judge sentenced him to 46 months in prison followed by three years of supervised release; TribLive reports that a defence expert testified he had been diagnosed with bipolar disorder with psychotic features and that the judge said the mental health component had a huge impact on the sentence. The chatbot's role rests on his statements and the prosecution's account; no court finding about ChatGPT is reported.
Prosecutor: judge used ChatGPT citations in Oklahoma custody order later vacated
In November 2025 Stephens County Associate District Judge Lawrence Wheeler issued an order in a child paternity and custody case that denied one parent's request for a psychological evaluation of the other parent and reprimanded the requesting parent's attorney 'for stooping to such frivolous trial tactics'. The attorney challenged the order at the Oklahoma Supreme Court in February 2026, telling the justices that it relied on two cases that do not exist; the challenge was dismissed in March after Wheeler vacated the order, and he is no longer on the case. According to a 17 August 2026 letter from the Stephens County district attorney, Wheeler told the Oklahoma State Bureau of Investigation that he used ChatGPT for research and wrote the order himself, and that at least two citations in it produced by ChatGPT do not exist. The mother in the case told News 9 that learning the order's citations were allegedly fabricated was alarming because it concerned the custody of a child. The attorney general's office declined criminal prosecution; judicial discipline remains possible.
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.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.