// knowledge base · court practice review

Court practice on AI in Russia

Six cases from 2025–2026. The state of practice is as of 13 September 2026; case statuses may change — check current texts by case number in the arbitration case-file index and the GAS Pravosudiye judicial system. The material is editorial: general information, not a legal opinion on a specific task.

No. А27-7831/2025 — the first fine for AI hallucinations

Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District, cassation · ruling of 14.05.2026 · in force

In its cassation appeal the company cited rulings of the Supreme Arbitration Court and the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation that do not exist: on verification, some of the numbers turned out to belong to other cases with different content, others concerned irrelevant questions, and still others could not be found at all. The citations had been generated by a neural network and were not verified by the appellant. The court fined the company 50,000 roubles.

• A reference in a procedural document to non-existent acts generated by AI is grounds for a judicial fine for breach of procedural duties.
• Responsibility for the accuracy of generated text lies with the party to the case, not the neural network: as the court's position implies, the excuse “ChatGPT came up with it” is no longer admissible.
• The fabrication of court practice was treated as direct deception of the court and gross disrespect for justice.

Provisions: Part 5 of Article 119, Part 2 of Article 9, Part 2 of Article 41 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

No. А71-11377/2025 — the fine reached the client

Intellectual Property Court, cassation · 27.08.2026 · in force

The second case of a fine for AI hallucinations and the first in which the fine was imposed on the client, although the text of the appeal was drafted by a professional representative. The cassation appeal relied on references to 12 judicial acts with direct quotations; verification showed that nine of the acts do not exist, two contain different text concerning irrelevant disputes, and one exists but does not contain the quoted conclusion. The representative explained this by the use of an AI service; the applicant insisted on the relevance of the practice even after the claimant pointed out that it did not exist.

• The client is responsible for the accuracy of documents signed in their name, even where drafting was delegated to a representative.
• Persistent use of fabricated practice after an opponent's objection aggravates the assessment of the conduct.

No. 02-1545/2026 — uploading to an AI service as disclosure of a secret

Babushkinsky District Court of Moscow · judgment of 26.05.2026, reasoning of 13.07.2026 · under appeal

An employment dispute over dismissal for disclosing a secret protected by law. Among the grounds was the uploading of reports from an internal protected resource to a third-party AI service. One of the first judicial acts to qualify the transfer of data to a third-party AI service directly as disclosure of a trade secret.

• Uploading information constituting a trade secret into an artificial-intelligence system constitutes disclosure of that information.
• The court applied the logic of the Constitutional Court (Resolution of 26.10.2017 No. 25-P): transferring data to an uncontrolled resource in itself creates the conditions for its uncontrolled use.

Provisions: subparagraph (v) of paragraph 6 of part 1 of Article 81 of the Labour Code of the Russian Federation; Article 10 of Federal Law No. 98-FZ on trade secrets. Practical takeaways for companies are in the note “AI and trade secrets”.

Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court No. 15 — disclosure of AI use to the court

Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation · 21.05.2026 · paragraph 42 of the clarifications on preparing civil cases

The clarifications on preparing civil cases for trial gained a rule: parties to a case who submit information about facts obtained using artificial-intelligence technologies must inform the court of this. This is one of the first mentions of AI in clarifications of the highest instance on civil procedure — in the context of the admissibility of evidence.

• The use of AI in obtaining information about facts is a circumstance that a party is obliged to disclose to the court.

No. 22-1201/2026 — an AI document is not evidence

Sverdlovsk Regional Court, appeal in a criminal case · 21.05.2026 · in force

The defence prepared an “analytical report” with the DeepSeek system — an analysis of the prosecution's evidence — and asked for it to be attached to the case materials. The first-instance court refused; the appellate panel upheld the refusal in a single sentence.

• Reports prepared with the help of artificial intelligence are not evidence under Article 74 of the Criminal Procedure Code of the Russian Federation.

No. 02-4220/2025 — rights to AI-generated images

Presnensky District Court of Moscow · 13.11.2025 · under appeal

A dispute over compensation for the use, in the sale of merchandise, of two design works created by the claimant with generative AI. The defendant used the images on its website. The subject of the proceedings was the protectability of AI-generated works and the role of the creative contribution of the author who formulates the prompts.

• The court treats images created by generative AI at a person's instruction as a potential subject of protection — the key question of the case is whether the person's creative contribution to their creation is sufficient.

General conclusions

• In proceedings, responsibility for the accuracy of AI-generated text lies with whoever signs and submits it: neither “the service came up with it” nor “the representative drafted it” relieves the client of responsibility.
• Courts already qualify the transfer of data to a public AI service as disclosure of a secret — a company needs an AI policy and approved tools.
• Procedural legislation is beginning to require disclosure of the use of AI in obtaining information about facts.

An analysis of what a company should put in place so that employees' use of AI does not become disclosure of a secret is in the note “AI and trade secrets”. The diff.legal team assesses a specific task after an enquiry.