Low reported severity Regulatory Action

Taipei District Court fines a litigant NT$30,000 for abusive retrial petitions that pasted in Copilot conversations, CTWANT reports

CTWANT reported on 22 October 2026 two rulings of the Taipei District Court in Taiwan. In August 2026 a civil division dismissed a retrial petition into which, it said, the petitioner had only pasted his conversations with Microsoft Copilot's generative AI; it said this was not in itself impermissible but that retrial grounds had not been lawfully stated, and that his copying of online news articles into Copilot and then of the whole exchange into his filing was a statement of his opinion and not objective evidence. He petitioned again and, in September 2026, a three-judge panel of another civil division said the new petition appeared to be generative AI conversation content placed in the filing, found that he had repeatedly petitioned on the same or similar grounds with a malicious purpose of wasting judicial resources, and fined him NT$30,000 under Article 249-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, warning that further abusive filings could bring a heavier fine. CTWANT describes it as the first court fine in Taiwan for abusive litigation with AI. The underlying claim, about fraudsters' misuse of his mobile number, had already been finally rejected. The rulings themselves were not inspected.

AI system: Microsoft Copilot (reported); Microsoft
Occurred: Aug 2026 to Sept 2026
Reported: 22 October 2026
Event location: Taiwan

What the AI did: Communicated with the person
Reported harm: Financial LossLegal Harm

Whose AI use: Their own AI use
Setting: Justice

Evidence: AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source; 4 claims: 4 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed: 1 person

AI system as recorded: Microsoft Copilot, a generative AI chat system, whose conversations with the petitioner were pasted into his retrial petitions (as described in the court's reported rulings)

What Happened

The petitions. CTWANT reports that the petitioner had sued a telecoms operator and a membership company, and two other people, for damages after his mobile number was misused by fraudsters; the court rejected the claims and the judgment became final. He then applied repeatedly for a retrial, writing the petitions with AI. According to CTWANT, the fourth civil division's ruling in case 115 Sheng-Zai No. 13 (August 2026) found that he had only pasted his conversations with Microsoft Copilot's generative AI system into the petition, and said that this was not in itself impermissible but that the prompts and the context of the conversation would have to be considered before deciding whether retrial grounds had been lawfully stated. He had also copied the content of online news reports into Copilot and then copied the whole exchange into his filing, which the court treated as a statement of his opinion and not objective evidence. The petition was dismissed.

The fine. He petitioned again. In case 115 Sheng-Zai No. 31 (September 2026), the second civil division said the filing appeared to place generative AI conversation content in the petition without identifying the evidence he said had not been considered, found that he had repeatedly petitioned on the same or similar grounds with a malicious purpose of wasting judicial resources, and fined him NT$30,000 under Article 249-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The panel warned that further abusive filings could be fined more heavily.

Limits. The record rests on one news report (CTWANT), with relays by LINE TODAY, Yahoo and PChome; the rulings were not read. The second ruling's wording on AI is hedged ('appears to be'). The fine rests on repeated petitions on the same grounds as well as on the AI content.

Reported harm

CTWANT reports that the Taipei District Court dismissed the litigant's retrial petitions, which it said consisted of pasted Copilot conversations, and in September 2026 fined him NT$30,000 for abusive litigation.

How Harm Occurred

According to CTWANT's account of the rulings, the litigant relied on Copilot conversations as the substance of his retrial petitions; the court treated the AI dialogue as opinion rather than evidence, dismissed the petitions and, after he kept filing AI-written petitions on the same grounds, fined him for abusive litigation.

Outcome

Resolved

August 2026: retrial petition (115 Sheng-Zai No. 13) dismissed by the court's fourth civil division. September 2026: further petition (115 Sheng-Zai No. 31) rejected by the second civil division, which imposed a fine of NT$30,000 for abusive litigation and warned of heavier fines. Whether the litigant challenged the fine is not reported.

What remains unknown

The full text and exact dates of both rulings; they were not inspected.
Whether the petitioner challenged the fine.
The content of the Copilot conversations and what answers Copilot gave.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. According to CTWANT's account of the August 2026 ruling, the court found that the petitioner had pasted his conversations with Microsoft Copilot's generative AI system into his retrial petition and had fed news articles into Copilot and copied the exchange into his filing; the court dismissed that petition. The September 2026 ruling that imposed the fine says, more cautiously, that the new petition appeared to be generative AI conversation content placed in the filing. The connection to the harm is the court's response to the AI-written petitions. The rulings were not inspected and no source reproduces the conversations.

4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported CTWANT reports that the petitioner's underlying damages claim, over fraudsters' misuse of his mobile number, was finally rejected and that he then repeatedly applied for a retrial, writing the petitions with AI.

Causal attribution. CTWANT's account of the proceedings.

ctwant.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'自己的手機號碼遭詐團盜用'; '敗訴確定，不過他屢次聲請再審，還利用AI寫訴狀，但皆遭駁回'

Reported According to CTWANT, the court's fourth civil division (case 115 Sheng-Zai No. 13, August 2026) found that the petitioner had only pasted his conversations with Microsoft Copilot's generative AI system into the petition, that he had copied news articles into Copilot and copied the exchange into his filing, that this was a statement of opinion rather than objective evidence, and dismissed the petition.

Causal attribution. The court's reported finding; the ruling itself was not inspected.

ctwant.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'僅將他與Microsoft Copilot（下稱Copilot）之生成式AI（Artificial Intelligence）系統間之對話轉貼至聲請狀'; '待Copilot回覆後再將整個對話複製至書狀，此性質上僅是他意見之陳述，也非客觀證據'; '逕以裁定駁回之'

Reported According to CTWANT, in September 2026 the second civil division (case 115 Sheng-Zai No. 31) said the new petition appeared to place generative AI conversation content in the filing, found that the petitioner had repeatedly petitioned on the same or similar grounds with a malicious purpose of wasting judicial resources, fined him NT$30,000 under Article 249-1 of the Code of Civil Procedure and warned that further abusive filings could be fined more heavily.

Causal attribution. The court's reported reasons; the fine rests on repetition on the same grounds as well as on the AI content.

ctwant.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'疑似係再審聲請人將生成式AI系統對話內容載於書狀，並未具體提出其所謂未經斟酌之證物'; '堪認基於惡意、浪費司法資源之不當目的而一再聲請再審'; '依民事訴訟法第249條之1第1項、第3項規定，對他罰鍰3萬元'; '倘再行濫訴，本院得再另行加重裁罰，附此敘明。'

Reported CTWANT describes the fine as the first case in Taiwan's judicial history of a fine for abusive litigation with AI.

Causal attribution. CTWANT's characterisation; not independently checked.

ctwant.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
'成為司法史首件AI濫訴判罰案例'

Sources

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

CTWANT, 22 Oct 2026: Taipei District Court issues first fine for abusive litigation with AI-written petitions(opens in new tab)
s1 · ctwant.com · News report · Chinese · Inspected · 22 October 2026 · Primary

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Traditional Chinese on 2026-10-23 from the publisher page. Translated by the research agent (an AI); quotations are Chinese originals and English renderings are the agent's translations. CTWANT describes the two rulings and quotes them; the rulings were not inspected. LINE TODAY, Yahoo Taiwan and PChome carry the same CTWANT text. Applies to s1.

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

The proceedings and the fine took place in the Taipei District Court, Taiwan, where the petitions were filed. The petitioner's residence is not used.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-23: Published as a concrete court sanction on a private person whose retrial petitions, according to the court's reported rulings, consisted of pasted conversations with Microsoft Copilot. The record rests on one news report that quotes the rulings; the rulings were not read, and the fining ruling's AI wording is hedged. The fine also rests on repeated petitions on the same grounds. The litigant is not identified.

People described

A litigant before the Taipei District Court who filed repeated retrial petitions containing his Copilot conversations and was fined

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the petitioner whom the court fined (CTWANT account of the rulings). Exact 1.

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). Taipei District Court fines a litigant NT$30,000 for abusive retrial petitions that pasted in Copilot conversations, CTWANT reports. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-taipei-district-court-fines-litigant-for-repeated-retrial-petitions-built-on-copilot-conversations

BibTeX

@misc{2026_taipei_district_court_fines_litigant_for_repeated_retrial_petitions_built_on_copilot_conversations,
  title = {Taipei District Court fines a litigant NT\$30,000 for abusive retrial petitions that pasted in Copilot conversations, CTWANT reports},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-taipei-district-court-fines-litigant-for-repeated-retrial-petitions-built-on-copilot-conversations}
}

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.

Low Google AI Overviews (reported)

Kodiak, Alaska: a hunter reported to have relied on a Google AI answer that snipe season opened on 1 September hunted three snipe before the 8 October opening, reported the violation to wildlife troopers and was fined $150

Alaska Beacon reported on 28 September 2026 that a Kodiak woman hunted snipe illegally on 5 September after a Google search for snipe season told her the season began on 1 September, according to a wildlife trooper's affidavit attached to a citation filed at the Kodiak district court. The outlet describes the answer as a Google AI overview. She hunted three snipe, grew suspicious on learning that duck season did not open until 8 October, checked the regulations and called troopers to report herself. The outlet reports the trooper said he ran an identical Google search and received identical incorrect information. She pleaded no contest and was fined $150, and told the outlet she felt shame and embarrassment. A Department of Public Safety spokesman said it was the first time he thought the agency had seen AI cited, and that she had acted correctly once she learned of the mistake. Google did not respond to the outlet's request for comment.

Low Unidentified AI drafting tool

Austria: Federal Administrative Court fines a litigant EUR 200 for hundreds of pages of submissions it found were AI-generated and unlabelled

In a pending appeal against a decision of Austria's data protection authority, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) found that the appellant had filed hundreds of pages of statements and attachments within less than four months that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and not labelled as AI-generated. In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court, holding that the AI-assisted filings repeated the same complaints, brought no new facts or evidence and ignored the EU labelling duty for AI-generated content. The court announced it as the first such penalty for AI submissions. The appellant is anonymised and the appellant's response is not reported.

Low Unidentified AI tool

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.

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