{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-10-24T06:49:15.975Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"judge-ai-use","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"contextual","evidence":"","year":"","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":1,"coverage":{"cases":1,"countries":1,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":0,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":1,"regulatory":0,"minors":0,"coreRelations":0,"contextualRelations":1,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2024-gelderland-sub-district-judge-used-chatgpt-to-estimate-solar-panel-damages-in-neighbour-dispute-and-rejected-claim","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Volgens hem is de verminderde opbrengst van de panelen van 77%'; 'Dat leidt volgens hem tot een totale schade van € 21.385,90'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The claimant sued his neighbour for about 21,000 euros, saying the neighbour's roof extension cut the yield of his solar panels by 77%.","causal_attribution":"The claimant's case as recorded in the judgment; documented as the content of his claim, not as a fact about the yield."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'De kantonrechter schat, mede met behulp van ChatGPT, de gemiddelde levensduur van zonnepanelen uit 2009 op 25 à 30 jaar'; 'Uitgaande, wederom mede aan de hand van ChatGPT, van een huidige gemiddelde kWh-prijs van € 0,30'; 'bedraagt het rendementsverlies, met een min of meer gelijkblijvende kWh-prijs, daarmee ongeveer € 2.250,--'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Bij de schadeberekening maakt de rechtbank ook gebruik van ChatGPT'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"The judge estimated the panels' remaining lifespan and the average electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT and put the yield loss at about 2,250 euros.","causal_attribution":"Stated by the court in its own judgment; the summary relays it. One origin (the judgment)."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'het maximaal te begroten bedrag aan schade zou hiermee (€ 2.250,-- + € 1.073,40 =) € 3.323,40 bedragen'; 'uiteindelijk aangeboden bedrag van'; 'Er is dus in deze procedure geen grond om'; 'heeft ook geen recht op € 3.300,-, nu hij het aanbod tot het betalen van dit bedrag heeft verworpen'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"'Rechtbank Gelderland oordeelt dat X geen recht heeft op een schadevergoeding in verband met de door Y geplaatste dakopbouw'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s2"}],"assertion":"Because half of the maximum damage of 3,323.40 euros was below the neighbour's 3,300-euro offer, which the claimant had refused, the claim was rejected and he received nothing.","causal_attribution":"The court's reasoning linking the ChatGPT-assisted estimate to the rejection; documented by the judgment."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'Redelijkerwijs – en ook weer mede aan de hand van ChatGPT – valt aan te nemen dat dit materiaal daardoor niet meer bruikbaar was'; 'wegens schadevergoeding te betalen'; '€ 2.619,02, vermeerderd met de wettelijke rente'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The judge also assumed, partly with ChatGPT, that insulation the claimant threw into water was unusable, and on the counterclaim ordered him to pay damages of 2,619.02 euros in total and the costs of the main claim.","causal_attribution":"Stated in the judgment; the ChatGPT-assisted assumption supports only the 204.66-euro insulation item within the total."}],"effects":[{"label":"damages claim rejected after a ChatGPT-assisted damage estimate","claim_id":"c3","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636","kind":"court_record","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Full text of the judgment of 7 June 2024 from the Rechtspraak open-data service (published 26 July 2024); HTTP 200, read in full.","independence_group":"rechtbank-gelderland-judgment-2024-3636"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://www.taxlive.nl/nl/documenten/vn-vandaag/rechter-gebruikt-chatgpt-bij-schadeberekening/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"nl","translation_note":"Read in Dutch by the research agent (an AI) on 2026-10-24 and translated by the research agent (an AI) into English; no human translator or reviewer was involved. Taxlive V-N Vandaag summary of the same judgment, edition 12 August 2024; HTTP 200, read in full.","independence_group":"rechtbank-gelderland-judgment-2024-3636"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["justice","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["What the judge asked ChatGPT and what it answered.","Whether the claimant appealed and with what result.","How the outcome would have differed without the ChatGPT-assisted estimates; the judgment also rejected the investment claim on other grounds."],"geography":{"basis":"The dispute concerns two attached houses whose owners also live in them, decided by the Rechtbank Gelderland sitting in Nijmegen; the street and town are anonymised in the published judgment, which applies Dutch law and Dutch subsidies.","court_countries":["NL"],"event_countries":["NL"],"affected_person_countries":["NL"]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as an AI-informed decision: in a judgment of 7 June 2024 a Dutch sub-district judge stated that the estimates of a homeowner's solar-panel lifespan and electricity prices were made partly with ChatGPT, and the resulting damage figure led to the rejection of the homeowner's claim against his neighbour. The facts come from the judgment itself.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-24"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The judgment states that the judge estimated the lifespan of the claimant's solar panels and the current electricity price partly with the help of ChatGPT, and those figures set the yield loss at about 2,250 euros and the maximum damage below the level at which the neighbour's offer would have been insufficient, leading to the rejection of the claim; the judge also relied partly on ChatGPT to treat insulation material as unusable in the counterclaim. The judgment does not reproduce the questions or answers.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["informed_decision_about"]},"name":"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","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2024-06-07","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2024-07-26","aiSystem":"ChatGPT, which the judgment says was used, together with other reasoning, to estimate the lifespan of solar panels, the average electricity price and whether water-damaged insulation was still usable","aiProduct":"ChatGPT","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"verified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["legal_harm","financial_loss"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"A homeowner's damages claim was rejected after the judge calculated the damage partly with ChatGPT's estimates, and the homeowner was ordered to pay costs and counterclaim damages, according to the judgment.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":0,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":1,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"The claimant homeowner, whose claim was rejected in the judgment. The neighbour won the counterclaim and is not counted.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"NL","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"lawsuit_dismissed","outcomeStatus":"unknown","primarySourceUrl":"https://data.rechtspraak.nl/uitspraken/content?id=ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636","primarySourceLabel":"Rechtbank Gelderland, judgment of 7 June 2024, ECLI:NL:RBGEL:2024:3636 (Rechtspraak open data)","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-24T03:15:10.77655+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-24T03:15:10.77655+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["court","judge-ai-use","chatgpt","damages","netherlands"]}]}