The courts demand disclosure of the use of neural networks According to Baza, the Samara Region Arbitration Court has included in judicial rulings requirements to report the use of artificial intelligence in the preparation of documents since the end of October. The publication listed more than ten such cases.
Participants are asked to indicate which fragments were prepared by the neural network and how the accuracy of the information was checked. What is important to know According to the "basis", the requirements refer to lawsuits, reviews, petitions, evidence and written explanations. Reporting only the fact of the use of artificial intelligence is not enough: the court needs information about its role in the preparation of the materials. The obligation to disclose the use of artificial intelligence has already appeared in the clarifications of the Supreme Court. Section 42 of the decision of the plenary session of the Supreme Court of May 21, 2026 No. 15 states: "Participants in the case who provided information to the court about facts obtained through artificial intelligence technologies must report this to the court." This clarification has specific limits: it concerns the civil procedure according to the civil procedure and information about the facts. The requirements of the Samara Arbitration Court as set forth in the "Basis" cover a wider range of materials. It is still too early to introduce them as one new rule for all Russian courts. Penalties for fictitious judicial practice are already being applied. The Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District, in a judgment dated May 14, 2026, in case No. A27-7831/2025, fined TsSS LLC 50 thousand rubles. The dismissal appeal included references to judicial acts that do not exist and conclusions attributed to the courts. The court qualified this as a lack of respect for justice and emphasized: the use of artificial intelligence does not exempt the participant in the case from responsibility for the accuracy of the text. Just a fact in the case of CSS, the company itself received the fine, even though the complaint was prepared by a representative. Changing a lawyer and asking not to consider the fictitious practice did not release me from responsibility. Anonymous Molotnikov.