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

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.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Paraná labour court annuls expert report carrying a hidden instruction aimed at AI and fines the court-appointed expert, report says

A labour court in Castro, Paraná (9th Region Labour Court), annulled a court-appointed expert's report after the employer, in a motion for clarification, reported a hidden sentence at the foot of a page instructing artificial intelligence to contest the report only superficially and not to question the files it cited, according to Diário de Justiça. The expert confirmed the text but said it came from teaching material about AI and was inserted by accident; the court's IT section concluded that it had been formatted deliberately to be invisible. The judge said AI had not been used to write the judgment and that the text did not directly influence it, but annulled the report, later submissions and the judgment, ordered a new examination by another expert without AI tools, fined the expert 5% of the value of the case for bad-faith litigation, cancelled the expert's fees and removed the expert from the court's register. The decision, dated 12 October 2026, can be challenged.

Medium Unidentified Google AI tool (reported)

Gujarat railway police say two workers were detained on a train with fake tickets a man made for them with a Google AI app for Rs 2,000

In October 2026 a ticket inspector on the Somnath/Veraval-Jabalpur Express, after the train left Wankaner in Gujarat, found that two passengers were carrying fake tickets on their mobile phones; they were handed to the Railway Protection Force and railway police in Rajkot registered a case and detained them. According to Gujarat Samachar, the two were factory workers, one of them a minor, who wanted to go home and asked a man working at their factory for tickets; he made the tickets with the help of AI and Photoshop and charged Rs 2,000. Gujarat Samachar English reports that the railway police investigation traced the forged tickets to a Google AI application and WhatsApp, and that the man who made them was also arrested. The reports differ on the workers' role: Bombay Samachar says they were cheated and at first suspected nothing, while Gujarat Samachar English says all three accused, including the two passengers, were remanded to judicial custody. Gujarat Samachar English dates the check 15 October, and the reports name no specific AI product.

Medium Unidentified AI tool

Ninth Circuit fines and suspends two immigration lawyers over briefs with AI-hallucinated citations and denials of AI use; immigration board follows

On 3 June 2026 the US Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit fined immigration attorneys Mike Singh Sethi and William Rounds $2,500 each and suspended both from practice before the court for six months. Briefs filed in an asylum petition for review cited two cases that do not exist and attributed quotations to opinions that do not contain them. In a motion to correct, the attorneys called the errors typographical, and at oral argument Rounds twice said AI was not used. In their response to the court's order to show cause, they conceded that the errors were probably the product of unauthorised AI use by the firm's unlicensed brief writers and a failure to check citations. The court said the suspension was owed to their repeated failure of candour. The Board of Immigration Appeals then suspended Sethi from practice before the Board, the immigration courts and the Department of Homeland Security for six months, effective 13 June 2026, and designated that decision as a precedent on 1 October 2026.

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