In what officials say is a first for Estonia, a Tallinn court fined plaintiffs over false academic references generated by artificial intelligence (AI) in a legal filing.
The plaintiffs in the case challenged a logging permit, submitting material to Tallinn Administrative Court citing studies on the impacts of clearcutting in forest management.
The court, however, found that the Estonian researchers cited do not actually exist and the studies described could not be found.
Seeking clarification on how the document in question was produced, the first-tier court gave the plaintiffs a chance to submit the cited studies as written evidence and warned they could face penalties for attempting to mislead the court.
The plaintiffs, in turn, said AI use is not prohibited, but added they had not intended to mislead the court.
Tallinn Administrative Court fined one plaintiff €150 and nine others €50 each, noting that while AI use is allowed, it is well established that AI tools can produce false information and plaintiffs remain responsible for the accuracy of their claims.
AI use can slow proceedings
Court chair Kaupo Kruusvee said judges have seen an increase in evidence of AI use in court filings in recent years, though its overall impact on the court system remains unclear.
“AI is being used to draw up court documents, among other things, and it appears to be a growing trend,” he said.
Kruusvee said caseloads have risen steadily since 2018, but warned that working through AI-generated “ballast” can ultimately slow proceedings, as each submission still requires full review.
He also acknowledged that AI may help non-lawyers identify arguments, which can be a good thing, but stressed that filed paperwork must still be factually accurate. AI can “hallucinate,” he warned, producing legal references that do not actually exist.
“People don’t need to know legal terms or Latin expressions by heart,” Kruusvee said. “They should explain in their own words what rights they believe were violated, what the facts are and what remedy they seek.”
The court, he added, can find the relevant legal provisions themselves.
Not used in court decisions
Kruusvee said judges may use AI in limited tasks like processing data, but stressed that references must be verified against original sources and that judges remain responsible for data protection rules.
“Courts do not use AI to draft decisions,” he emphasized, adding that judges still weigh cases themselves, including with their conscience. “AI does not draft court decisions and hopefully never will.”
Under Estonian law, courts may fine parties who knowingly or through gross negligence submit false factual claims.
In its decision, Tallinn Administrative Court said that if a plaintiff cites academic sources, they must ensure the sources actually exist and support their claims, warning that otherwise it constitutes the submission of false information.
Estonian courts have previously warned about careless AI use, but this marks the first known case of a court issuing fines over AI-generated content in a filing.
—
