Artificial intelligence (AI) tools are increasingly being used by consumers to file complaints against traders. Currently, around 60% of requests for assistance in resolving disputes with vendors from other EU countries received by the European Consumer Centre Czechia are prepared in this way. However, such descriptions can also generate inaccuracies, including references to non-existent sections of laws or court decisions, or incorrect assessments of the case. It is therefore advisable to be careful and know what information to give to such tools.
“Artificial intelligence can correctly highlight important facts and process a description of the case. It saves people time and often provides a good summary. However, it cannot replace the work of a lawyer in a specific case. The assessment must always be made by a human being, and every ‘artificial’ legal statement needs to be verified,” says Ondřej Tichota, the Director of the European Consumer Centre, which operates under the Czech Trade Inspection Authority.
AI can thus “confidently” cite non-existent legal regulations. Recently, it hallucinated in a case where, in response to complaints about an incorrectly displayed price and subsequent non-delivery of shoes from an e-shop, it generated texts for some consumers with references to non-existent Dutch legal regulations and court decisions. It wanted to use them to support a request for delivery of goods at a clearly absurd price of 4 or 5% of their normal price.
“This is a typical example of artificial intelligence hallucination. The generated text sounds convincing, but it is based on provisions that do not exist and are even the opposite of reality. Dutch courts and market supervisory authorities classify such cases as objective errors in price offers and not as unfair commercial practices, as the AI has labeled them. However, we had to verify even these fictitious provisions of alleged laws, either ourselves or by inquiring with our partner center in the Netherlands. This is a relatively complex matter that needs to be assessed on a case-by-case basis, which a publicly available artificial intelligence tool not trained in unfair practices may not be able to do,” adds Ondřej Tichota.
Complaints prepared by AI are also sometimes unnecessarily lengthy, with a lot of general “fluff.” This prolongs the processing of cases. In practice, it has proven useful to ask for a brief factual summary of the problem, what the consumer is demanding, and what evidence they are providing. You can request an outline of information that the user fills in themselves—for example, the order number, invoice number, date of purchase and complaint, amount paid, and desired solution.
It is also important to handle personal data securely. The ECC does not recommend uploading entire contracts and receipts to open AI tools and only inserting sensitive data into the text afterwards. This procedure reduces the risk of data leakage. If a person wants to insert texts from a contract or similar, they can insert a file without the first page, or a print screen of only part of the invoice without personal data, etc.
“We have seen one curious case. A consumer was dealing with a complaint about the functionality of software via the provider’s AI chat service. When his request was not met and he was unable to contact a live operator, he gave the AI the task of writing a complaint about itself, which he then submitted to the Czech Trade Inspection Authority,” says Ondřej Tichota.
ESC Czechia operates under the Czech Trade Inspection Authority and continues its activities in 2025, when it commemorates 20 years of promoting fair relations between consumers and businesses in the EU single market. The activities of the Union ECC network are funded by the European Commission and participating countries. More information on consumer rights can be found at www.evropskyspotrebitel.gov.cz.