A Dutch couple’s big day has taken an unexpected turn after their marriage was declared invalid by a court. The reason? Artificial intelligence.
According to reports, a civil registrar used ChatGPT to help craft a “lighter” and more engaging speech for the ceremony. While the idea sounded harmless, the AI-generated text left out key legal declarations required under Dutch law. Those missing words meant the marriage was never legally binding.
The court’s decision has sparked debate about the role of technology in official proceedings. While AI tools like ChatGPT are increasingly used for convenience and creativity, this case highlights the risks when legal formalities are overlooked. In the Netherlands, specific phrases must be spoken during a wedding ceremony to make the union official, and skipping them, even unintentionally, renders the marriage void.
The Vows (Translated from Dutch)
“ [man] do you promise to stand next to [woman] today, tomorrow and all the days to come?
To laugh together, grow together, and love each other – whatever life brings?
What is your answer to that?
[woman] , do you choose [man] again today?
To continue to support each other, to continue to tease each other, to continue to hold on – even if life is bad?
What is your answer to that?
Then I hereby declare to you:
Not just husband and wife, but above all a team, a crazy couple, each other’s love and each other’s home!
You can now be the first to congratulate each other on a kiss!
Closure:
[woman] and [man] ,
Congratulations.
You are now official: husband and wife.”
What They Should Have Said (According to Dutch Law)
“Yes, I accept [name] as my spouse and I promise to faithfully fulfil all duties that the law imposes on the marital state.”
For the couple, the ruling means they are not legally married, despite celebrating their wedding day months ago. They will need to go through the process again if they want their union recognised.
Experts say this incident is a wake-up call for registrars and other officials who might lean on AI for efficiency. While technology can be a helpful assistant, it cannot replace the precision required in legal contexts. The case has also prompted questions about whether regulations should be updated to address the growing use of AI in public services.
