A man is issued with an additional parking tax assessment. He objects and then appeals. He refers to a ruling that does not exist and insists on an incorrect street name in the assessment. The court suspects that the man sought legal advice from ChatGPT. He would have been better off doing so ‘with someone who is knowledgeable’.
Wrong parking box, wrong street name
A man, without paying, parks his car in an unnamed side street in ‘s-Hertogenbosch. A scanning car registers the offence and an additional tax assessment follows. The man objects to the additional tax assessment, as the assessment states an incorrect street name. The tax officer explains that when the street is unnamed, the system automatically selects the nearest named street. The man is not satisfied and appeals. He believes that the assessment should be annulled due to insufficient factual basis.
Hallucinatory AI
The court is under the impression that the man sought legal advice from ChatGPT or another generative AI. A strong indication of this is that the man refers to an 18 August 2022 Amsterdam court ruling. This ruling does not exist. The ECLI number concerns an unpublished judgment dated 20 July 2022 in a civil case. There is also no published ruling of 18 August 2022 from the District Court of Amsterdam dealing with a parking tax case. The court considers that generative AI regularly ‘hallucinates’ when citing case law. Had the man consulted an expert, the expert would have told him that litigation was futile. This would have saved him both the additional tax assessment and the court fee.
Law is not that formalistic
The court gives short shrift to the man's arguments. The purpose of street naming is to make it clear where the vehicle was parked. This was crystal clear to the man, as he himself attached a map to his appeal with the exact location. This virtually matched the registration of the charging officer. So a wrong street name is no reason to quash the assessment. The man further argued that the parking sign was not clearly visible due to overgrowth. The court finds it noteworthy that he only raises this argument as a last resort. Moreover, there were zone signs along the access roads, so the obligation to pay was sufficiently clear.
Ask a man
This ruling is a warning for those seeking legal advice from AI. Generative AI can produce convincing-sounding but inaccurate information, including references to non-existent case law. Seeking advice from someone who is knowledgeable on the subject saves a trip to court (as well as the cheeks of shame). The man in question has now lost not only the costs already paid for the tax assessment, but also the court fee. Tuition fees, shall we say.