A German court has refused to pay for an expert analysis prepared by an AI.

#GermanyCourtPractice

A German court considered an illustrative case:

The client was billed €2,374.50 for the medical examination. However, during the investigation, it emerged that the expert had not conducted a full examination, had not examined the patient, and had failed to clearly explain the methodology for preparing the report.

The court was dubious about the document's content: it consisted primarily of standardized wording, repetitive constructions, and lacked any original professional conclusions. This led to speculation that the opinion had been generated using artificial intelligence.

Result: the court reduced the payment to 0 euros.

The court's position:

The client has the right to expect a personal, professional assessment from the expert. If the result is actually created by AI without sufficient independent intellectual effort, the request for compensation will not be satisfied.

The court emphasized that human labor is paid for, intellectual contribution must be individual and verifiable, and the formal preparation of a text without expert methodology and justification does not constitute a proper service.

This case is important not only for experts, but also for lawyers, consultants, and anyone who provides intellectual services.

The use of AI is an acceptable tool.

However, replacing professional work with automated generation may result in a complete loss of the right to payment.

If you're working with expert opinions or disputing a bill for poor service, this precedent is worth considering.