Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Regulatory Action

Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess

According to Gossement Avocats, which quotes the order, and the court's vice-president on France Inter, an order of 19 August 2026 (n°2508168) of the tribunal administratif de Rennes rejected a claimant’s application contesting a VAT reassessment and fined the claimant 500 euros for an abusive application. As quoted by Gossement Avocats, the order says the application had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed to assess them. The court also found it inadmissible because no prior complaint to the tax service was shown, and noted that it repeated a request with substantially the same object rejected in October 2025. The court’s vice-president cited the case on France Inter; commentators stress that AI use alone was not the basis for the fine.

AI system
Unidentified AI tool
Unknown
Occurred
19 Aug 2026
Reported
2 September 2026
Event location
France
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Financial LossLegal Harm
Whose AI use
Their own AI use
Setting
Justice · Finance · Public services
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources
3 claims: 3 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Generative AI tool (not named in inspected sources)

What Happened

Gossement Avocats, which quotes the order, reports that the claimant asked the tribunal administratif de Rennes to overturn a decision of the tax administration on a VAT reassessment. By order n°2508168 of 19 August 2026 the court rejected the application on two grounds. First, it was not shown to have been preceded by a complaint to the tax service, as article R. 190-1 of the livre des procédures fiscales requires, so it was manifestly inadmissible. Second, in the order’s words (reviewer’s translation), the grounds of the application, ‘which, moreover, was manifestly written with the help of an artificial intelligence tool, are not accompanied by the most elementary details allowing the judge to assess their scope and merits’. Given those two findings, and because the application followed one with substantially the same object rejected by order of 3 October 2025, the court held it abusive and fined the claimant 500 euros. Gossement describes the drafting as a ‘lazy’ use of AI and says the fine was not imposed on the sole ground of AI use. On 2 September 2026 the court’s vice-president, Thurian Jouno, cited the case on France Inter as an example of a woman who contested a tax reassessment, manifestly with the help of AI, and was fined 500 euros. Jouno described AI-generated applications containing invented, erroneous or inappropriate references. Capital.fr (relayed by Le Tribunal du Net) and franceinfo (summarised by Epoch Times France) also reported the fine; Le Tribunal du Net misdates the order to 2025. The AI tool is not named.

Reported harm

A claimant was fined 500 euros for an abusive application and had it rejected; the order states the application was manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess, alongside inadmissibility and repetition grounds (order quoted by Gossement Avocats; court vice-president on France Inter).

Outcome

Resolved

According to Gossement Avocats' quotation of the order, the application was rejected under article R. 222-1 of the code de justice administrative and the claimant was fined 500 euros under article R.741-12 (maximum 10,000 euros); the court's vice-president also cited the 500 euro fine on France Inter. Gossement Avocats reports that the court published a communiqué on LinkedIn ending with advice to use artificial intelligence with tact, discernment and moderation. No appeal is reported.

What remains unknown

  • Which AI tool was used and how the claimant used it.
  • The amount of the VAT reassessment at issue and whether the claimant pursued any further remedy.
  • Whether the earlier request rejected on 3 October 2025 was also AI-drafted.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The order, as quoted by Gossement Avocats, states that the application was manifestly written with an artificial intelligence tool; the court’s vice-president repeated this on France Inter. This is the court’s inference from the text. The tool is not named and no source reproduces the claimant’s exchange with it.

3 claims: 3 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported By order n°2508168 of 19 August 2026, the tribunal administratif de Rennes fined a claimant 500 euros for an abusive application (recours abusif) under article R.741-12 of the code de justice administrative.

Causal attribution. Gossement Avocats quotes the order; the court’s vice-president described the fine on France Inter (ICI). Le Tribunal du Net (relaying Capital) dates the order 19 August 2025, contradicting its own opening sentence and the other sources; 2026 is used here.

  • gossement-avocats.com(opens in new tab) supports · French
    'Par une ordonnance n°2508168 rendue le 19 août 2026, le tribunal administratif de Rennes a infligé une amende pour recours abusif de 500 euros à une personne dont le recours avait manifestement été écrit à l’aide d’un outil d’intelligence artificielle.'
  • ici.fr(opens in new tab) supports · French
    'le vice-président du tribunal administratif de Rennes, Thurian Jouno, prend l'exemple d'une femme qui avait réclamé l'annulation d'un rattrapage fiscal, manifestement avec l'aide de l'IA. Elle a été condamnée à une amende de 500 €.'
  • epochtimes.fr(opens in new tab) supports · French
    'Le 19 août 2026, le tribunal administratif de Rennes a condamné une requérante à une amende de 500 euros pour recours abusif.'
  • letribunaldunet.fr(opens in new tab) context · French
    'Le tribunal administratif de Rennes a tranché le 19 août 2025 : 500 euros d’amende pour recours abusif.'
Reported The order states that the application, contesting a VAT reassessment by the tax administration, had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed for the judge to assess them; this was one of the grounds for rejecting it.

Causal attribution. The court’s own finding, as quoted by Gossement Avocats. The court inferred AI drafting from the text; no source says which tool was used or quotes the claimant.

  • gossement-avocats.com(opens in new tab) supports · French
    'avait déposé un recours devant le tribunal administratif de Rennes pour contester une décision de l’administration fiscale (rappel de TVA)'
  • gossement-avocats.com(opens in new tab) supports · French
    'les moyens de la requête, laquelle a, au demeurant, été manifestement écrite à l’aide d’un outil d’intelligence artificielle, ne sont pas assortis des précisions les plus élémentaires, permettant au juge d’en apprécier la portée et le bien-fondé.'
  • epochtimes.fr(opens in new tab) supports · French
    'Elle demandait l’annulation d’un rattrapage fiscal dans une requête qui comportait des erreurs importantes et était, selon le juge, manifestement assistée par un outil d’intelligence artificielle.'
Reported The court also found the application manifestly inadmissible because it was not shown to have been preceded by a complaint to the tax service, and held it abusive in view of that finding, the imprecision finding and the fact that it followed a request with substantially the same object rejected by order of 3 October 2025.

Causal attribution. The order’s reasoning as quoted by Gossement Avocats: the AI-drafted imprecision is one stated ground among several; Gossement and Le Tribunal du Net both stress that AI use alone was not the basis of the fine.

  • gossement-avocats.com(opens in new tab) supports · French
    'il n’est pas établi que la requête ait été précédée d’une réclamation adressée aux services fiscaux. Elle est donc manifestement irrecevable'
  • gossement-avocats.com(opens in new tab) supports · French
    'Eu égard à ce qui a été dit aux points 2 et 3 ci-dessus, la présente requête, qui fait d’ailleurs suite à une requête ayant, en substance, le même objet, rejetée par ordonnance du 3 octobre 2025, présente un caractère abusif.'
  • gossement-avocats.com(opens in new tab) context · French
    'le tribunal administratif de Rennes n’a pas infligé cette amende pour recours abusif à l’auteure de la requête au seul motif qu’il a été rédigé avec l’aide de l’IA.'
  • letribunaldunet.fr(opens in new tab) context · French
    'Ce n’est donc pas l’usage de l’IA en lui-même qui a été puni, mais l’insistance sur un dossier déjà tranché.'

Sources

4 sources inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Full post read by curl on 2026-09-29 (Arnaud Gossement, note updated 16 September 2026); it quotes the order at length. English renderings in the record are the reviewer’s translations. The order itself was not read. Applies to s1.

ICI / France Inter, 2 September 2026, reporting the court vice-president’s radio interview; read in full by curl. Reviewer’s translations. Applies to s2.

Le Tribunal du Net, 7 September 2026, relaying Capital.fr’s interview with lawyer Alexandre Lazarègue; read in full. It dates the order to 19 August 2025, an error against its own opening and the other sources. Capital.fr’s original was not read. Applies to s3.

Epoch Times France, 24 September 2026, summarising franceinfo’s report of the decision; read in full. franceinfo’s original was not read. Applies to s4.

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

The order was made by the tribunal administratif de Rennes (France) on a French tax (VAT) dispute. Where the claimant lives or where the application was drafted is not stated.

Reviewed for publication 2026-09-29: Published as a concrete court sanction on a private person whose application the court found manifestly AI-written and too imprecise to assess. The record rests on a law firm’s verbatim quotation of the order and the court vice-president’s radio account; the order itself was not read. The court fined for several reasons, and the record states them. The claimant is not identified.

People described

A private claimant (not identified here) contesting a VAT reassessment before the tribunal administratif de Rennes

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One harmed person: the claimant who filed the application the court found AI-written and who was fined 500 euros (order as quoted by Gossement Avocats; court vice-president on France Inter). No other harmed person is reported.

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

Tags

#justice#administrative-court#fine#recours-abusif#ai-drafted-filing#tax#france#rennes

Cite this case

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

APA

NOPE. (2026). Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-rennes-administrative-court-fines-claimant-ai-written-tax-appeal

BibTeX

@misc{2026_rennes_administrative_court_fines_claimant_ai_written_tax_appeal,
  title = {Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-rennes-administrative-court-fines-claimant-ai-written-tax-appeal}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Surat, India: a customs officer's ₹425 crore penalty order against a diamond trader relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that India's Supreme Court found 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'; the court set the order aside after the trader had lost in the Gujarat High Court

On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.

Medium Unidentified video tool

Miami: scammers cloned immigration attorney Ángel Leal's face and voice with AI to defraud immigrants seeking legal help

From around October 2025, criminals used AI to clone the image, voice, name, signature and firm logo of Ángel Leal, a long-established immigration attorney in Doral, Florida. They created fake videos, look-alike websites, forged contracts and even fabricated Zoom 'immigration hearings' to persuade immigrants to pay for legal services Leal never provided. Immigrants were defrauded of money, and some believed their cases were progressing when they were not; Leal received one to two defrauded callers a day, changed his phone number, hired an anti-piracy firm that removed thousands of fake profiles and videos, and reported the fraud to local police and federal authorities.

High Unidentified AI tool

SDT strikes solicitor Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after AI-generated false citations in his SRA defence

On 25 August 2026 the Solicitors Disciplinary Tribunal struck Abhishek Kumar off the Register of Foreign Lawyers after finding proved that his 12 March 2026 Answer to the SRA's Rule 12 Statement contained misleading quotations and citations produced with generative AI — including a non-existent 'SRA v Chan [2020] EWHC 1502' and a miscited 'SRA v James, MacGregor & Naylor [2018] EWCA Civ 1420' that is actually an intellectual-property case — and that his 9 April 2026 email admitting AI use was itself AI-drafted with further errors. The tribunal said it would have struck him off on that allegation alone; the parallel ground was his January 2024 conviction under s.21 of the Immigration, Asylum and Nationality Act 2006. This is the SDT's first case on a lawyer's use of AI, per the SRA's counsel.

Medium First Drafts and unidentified legal research tool

Fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): four attorneys on both sides sanctioned after AI tools produced fabricated case citations; trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel

In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.

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