- A Dutch court fully upheld AIH BV’s claim for payment against UMS BV, dismissing UMS’s attempt to use a ChatGPT analysis as evidence of a deficient business plan.
- The judge disregarded the ChatGPT analysis because UMS’s lawyer failed to provide the input prompt, explain the AI’s “temperature” setting (which affects the risk of “hallucinations”), and admitted the analysis was based on an incomplete draft, not the final business plan.
- This ruling emphasizes that for generative AI output to be admissible as evidence in legal proceedings, there must be complete transparency regarding the parameters used (e.g., prompt, temperature) and the specific source data fed to the AI.
Source BTW Jurisprudentie
Latest Posts in "Netherlands"
- State Secretary Sees No Major Problems for Floriculture Sector from Higher VAT
- Principle of legitimate expectations prevents additional VAT assessment of contractors
- VAT-Exempt Rental of Padel and Squash Courts?
- AG: No VAT Education Exemption for Foundation Lending Teachers
- Netherlands Plans Peppol-Based E-Invoicing and Digital Reporting Under ViDA
