A German appellate court held a company to specialist titles its chatbot invented, and allowed a further appeal

The document exists. The ledger fetched it at its publisher and quotes it.

Record ID

AIL-2026-0030

Kind

Fabrication

Jurisdiction

European Union

Last verified

15 September 2026

Added

15 September 2026

• The court's press release records that the chatbot told users the company's two doctors held several specialist titles, including titles that do not exist.
• The court held the answers were unlawful commercial acts of the company under German unfair competition law and granted the injunction sought.
• The court did not accept the company's view that incorrect chatbot answers were not attributable to it as its own commercial act.
• The release states that even if the company had programmed the chatbot only with correct data, it bears responsibility for the false statements about its directors' titles.
• The court states the chatbot is not a third party within the meaning of the law, and allowed a further appeal because the attribution of false chatbot statements raises new legal questions.

Identity, Authorization, Delegation, Limits, Human approval, Revocation, Accountability. Stated means the document you can open below says it; silent means the ledger read the document and it does not.

IdentityStated

The court fixed the speaking identity as the operator rather than the bot, so the agent had no separate legal standing to hide behind.Justiz NRW, Oberlandesgericht Hamm press release on case 4 UKl 3/25, primary source, 12 May 2026.

AuthorizationSilent

Nothing constrained what the chatbot could assert about professional credentials.Justiz NRW, Oberlandesgericht Hamm press release on case 4 UKl 3/25, primary source, 12 May 2026.

DelegationSilent

The company argued the answers were not attributable to it and the court refused that argument.Justiz NRW, Oberlandesgericht Hamm press release on case 4 UKl 3/25, primary source, 12 May 2026.

LimitsSilent

The court notes that correct training data would not have excused the false output, so no output bound existed.Justiz NRW, Oberlandesgericht Hamm press release on case 4 UKl 3/25, primary source, 12 May 2026.

Human approvalSilent

Answers reached customers and patients unreviewed in real time.Justiz NRW, Oberlandesgericht Hamm press release on case 4 UKl 3/25, primary source, 12 May 2026.

RevocationStated

The chatbot was deactivated after the warning letter, but the company did not sign the undertaking, so the dispute continued.Justiz NRW, Oberlandesgericht Hamm press release on case 4 UKl 3/25, primary source, 12 May 2026.

AccountabilityStated

An appellate court placed responsibility on the operator and allowed a further appeal on the attribution question.Justiz NRW, Oberlandesgericht Hamm press release on case 4 UKl 3/25, primary source, 12 May 2026.

Two years after the Canadian tribunal decision, a European appellate court reached the same place on a different legal basis, and the reasoning is the one to quote internally: the chatbot is part of the business, not a third party. Bind any customer facing agent to your published claims, keep a transcript, and treat a disclaimer as no defence against a statement about your own credentials.

1. Justiz NRW, Oberlandesgericht Hamm press release on case 4 UKl 3/25Primary · 12 May 2026
2. Wettbewerbszentrale, report on the Hamm chatbot liability decision with the full textSecondary · 3 June 2026

• Reported, primary not reachedFabricationAIL-2026-0029

  A tribunal held an airline to what its chatbot told a passenger, rejecting the argument that the bot was a separate entity

  Canada · verified 15 September 2026

  The passenger asked the airline's website chatbot about bereavement fares and was told he could apply for the discount after flying, which the published policy did not allow.

• VerifiedFabricationAIL-2026-0028

  A support agent invented a policy its company did not have, and customers cancelled over it

  United States · verified 15 September 2026

  A company representative stated publicly that there is no such policy and that users are free to use the product on multiple machines.

• Open questionOpen questionAIL-2026-0034

  Who is liable when an agent commits its principal to something false or binding?

  Global · verified 15 September 2026

  The Canadian tribunal decision is a small claims level decision and is not binding precedent on other courts.

• Open questionOpen questionAIL-2026-0033

  Is an operator anywhere required to report that an agent acted beyond its authority?

  European Union · verified 15 September 2026

  Article 73 requires providers of high risk AI systems placed on the Union market to report any serious incident to the market surveillance authorities of the member states where it occurred.