Ben Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan & Ministry of Education, AAM 63194-08-25
·Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as the Court of Administrative Appeals)·ILCosts order
In Israel, the Supreme Court (sitting in administrative appeals, 22 March 2026) held that the Municipality of Ramat Gan had recklessly relied on generative-AI output — a non-existent Education Ministry directive and fabricated rulings — in a case over a special-needs child's school transport, and exceptionally ordered 30,000 NIS in costs, extending AI-hallucination accountability to a public body.
- Court
- Supreme Court of Israel (sitting as the Court of Administrative Appeals)
- Date
- 2026-03-22
- Who used the AI
- Not recorded
- AI tool
- Not identified in the record
- Conduct
- In an administrative dispute over school transport for a child with special needs, the Ramat Gan municipality relied on AI-generated materials that included a non-existent Ministry of Education director-general circular and fabricated court rulings. The court found the cited sources did not exist and had been fabricated by a generative-AI system, describing the reliance as reckless.
- Outcome
- Costs order
- Penalty
- ₪30,000
- Regulatory outcome
- No separate regulatory disposition recorded
- Status
- Verified against listed sources
- Last checked
- 2026-09-04
What was fabricated or misused
- Ministry of Education Director-General Circular 5783/4(a) of 1 September 2022, titled "Procedure for transporting special-education pupils whose parents live apart (shared parenting)" — the Ministry said no such circular exists
- Detailed "quotations" from that invented circular — the court did not list each quotation
- Propositions attributed to "recent case law" and judgments that do not exist — the court did not name the cases
What the court said
“סוגיית הזיותיהן של מערכות בינה מלאכותית כבר נדונה על-ידי בית משפט זה, בהקשר של כתבי בית-דין בהליכים משפטיים.”
“אבהיר, לא עצם השימוש בבינה מלאכותית הוא הפסול, אלא השימוש בה ללא בקרה מתאימה, המוודאת ומאמתת את נכונות תוצריה.”
“כאשר האזרח מקבל מרשות מינהלית החלטה הנראית לכאורה מנומקת ומבוססת על טעמים ואסמכתאות משפטיות, במרבית המקרים, אין ביכולתו להרהר אחריה”
“כך, למשל, אירע במקרה שלפנינו, בו ביססה הרשות את החלטתה על חוזר מנכ"ל שאינו קיים, פרי "הזייתה" של הבינה המלאכותית, תוך הפניות לסעיפיו השונים והסתמכות על "ציטוטים" מפורטים מאותו חוזר מומצא.”
Timeline
- City education official denied transport from father's home, relying on mother's custody.
- Father's lawyer sent a pre-action letter seeking transport from father's home.
- City again denied the request, citing a non-existent Ministry circular.
- Parties agreed the child would receive transport from father's address.
- District Court declined to order costs for the father.
- Supreme Court allowed the costs appeal and ordered ₪30,000.
Why this case matters
Ben Cohen moves the hallucination problem outside lawyer submissions. The false material was used by a municipality in an administrative response to a parent, before the case reached court. That makes the record different from Mata v Avianca and Mezu: the citizen faced an official decision that appeared reasoned and law-based but rested on a non-existent circular and fabricated case material. The Supreme Court treated that power imbalance as a reason for higher costs and for a stronger human-review rule for public authorities using AI.
Practice note
A public authority using AI in a decision letter should verify each circular, statutory section, case, and quotation against official ministry or court sources before sending it. The reviewer must be able to reject the output, not only read it. Where AI materially shaped the response, disclosure helps the citizen test the decision and appeal it.
Primary sources for this incident
- Ben Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan, AAM 63194-08-25 (Israeli Supreme Court, 22 Mar 2026) — official court decisions database (Hebrew; decision confirmed on server, Hebrew text corroborated via multiple expert readings — [pin-cite pending Hebrew-capable check])
- Ben Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan, AAM 63194-08-25 — Afik & Co. Hebrew decision mirror, part 1
- Ben Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan, AAM 63194-08-25 — Afik & Co. Hebrew decision mirror, part 2
- Ben Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan, AAM 63194-08-25 — Afik & Co. Hebrew decision mirror, part 3
- Ben Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan, AAM 63194-08-25 — Afik & Co. Hebrew decision mirror, part 4
- Ben Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan, AAM 63194-08-25 — Afik & Co. Hebrew decision mirror, part 5
- law.co.il, 'Israeli Supreme Court Imposes Duties on Organizations Using AI' (29 Apr 2026; secondary, in English)
- Pearl Cohen, 'Israeli Supreme Court Punishes Municipality's Reckless Use of AI' (secondary)
Related regulation records for this incident
No related regulation record has been linked to this incident yet.
Similar incidents on the record
- Adibi v. AIG Israel Insurance Co., Class Action 6989-05-25 (Tel Aviv District Court)2026-08-23 · Tel Aviv District Court · WarningApproving the withdrawal of a class action over call-centre waiting times, a judge of the Tel Aviv District Court in Israel found that five authorities cited in the applicant's reply were AI hallucinations. He considere…
- Yunes v. M.A. Asli Marketing, Case 7669-06-24 (Haifa Regional Labor Court)2026-08-17 · Haifa Regional Labor Court · SanctionsIn an employment claim before the Haifa Regional Labor Court in Israel, the court found that several precedents cited by the worker's lawyer did not exist. After counsel conceded they probably originated from an AI sear…
Cite this record
SafeLegalAI Global Legal AI Incident Tracker, “Ben Cohen v. Municipality of Ramat Gan & Ministry of Education, AAM 63194-08-25”, safelegalai.com/tracker/ben-cohen-v-ramat-gan (accessed 2026-09-16). Data: CC BY 4.0.