A Dutch court has invalidated the marriage of a young couple after determining that their wedding vows—written entirely by ChatGPT—did not meet the legal threshold for personal intent, igniting an international debate over artificial intelligence, authenticity, and the future of human commitment in the digital age.
The ruling, delivered by a civil court in the Netherlands, marks one of the first known cases in Europe where the use of generative artificial intelligence has directly affected the legal standing of a marriage. While the decision rests on narrow legal grounds, its broader implications are already reverberating through legal, ethical, and technological circles.
A Marriage Undone by Words
According to court documents, the couple—whose identities were withheld to protect their privacy—submitted vows during a civil ceremony that were later revealed to have been fully generated by an AI chatbot. The vows, though eloquent and emotionally resonant, were found to be identical to text produced through a generic AI prompt, with no evidence of personal modification.
Under Dutch civil law, marriage is not merely ceremonial; it requires a clear demonstration of free will and personal intent by both parties. The court concluded that outsourcing the core declaration of commitment to an artificial system undermined this requirement.
“The expression of marital consent must originate from the individuals themselves,” the presiding judge wrote. “Delegating this expression wholesale to an automated system introduces ambiguity as to authorship, intent, and authenticity.”
Legal Intent in the Age of Automation
The ruling does not criminalize the use of artificial intelligence in weddings, nor does it prohibit couples from seeking inspiration or assistance in drafting vows. Rather, it draws a legal line between assistance and substitution.
Legal analysts note that the court’s concern was not with the technology itself, but with the absence of demonstrable personal agency. In the court’s view, vows are not decorative flourishes but the legal and emotional core of a marriage contract.
“This case turns on intent, not innovation,” said one Amsterdam-based family law expert. “If the vows had been adapted, personalized, or even partially authored by the couple, the outcome may have been different.”
The decision suggests that courts may increasingly scrutinize how emerging technologies intersect with acts that carry legal consequences, from contracts and wills to oaths and declarations.
The Couple’s Defense
During proceedings, the couple argued that their use of AI reflected modern communication habits rather than a lack of sincerity. They maintained that the vows accurately represented their feelings and that the technology merely helped articulate emotions they struggled to express.
Their lawyers emphasized that many couples rely on templates, officiant-written scripts, or online examples when preparing vows, and questioned whether AI-generated text is meaningfully different.
The court acknowledged these arguments but ultimately rejected them, stating that the scale and exclusivity of AI involvement mattered. In this case, the vows were not adapted or personalized in any identifiable way.
A Precedent With Global Echoes
Though the ruling applies only within the Dutch legal system, its symbolic weight is significant. As generative AI tools become embedded in everyday life, courts around the world are being forced to confront new questions about authorship, responsibility, and human agency.
Marriage, traditionally viewed as a deeply personal institution, now finds itself at the frontier of this debate. If vows can be written by machines, critics ask, what other aspects of personal commitment might be automated next?
Supporters of the ruling argue that it preserves the human core of marriage. Critics warn it risks moral panic over tools that are already widely used in writing speeches, love letters, and even legal documents.
Technology Meets Tradition
The case highlights a broader cultural tension: society’s growing reliance on AI to perform expressive and emotional labor once considered uniquely human. While technology promises efficiency and eloquence, institutions rooted in personal responsibility and intent may resist full automation.
For now, the Dutch court has sent a clear signal. In matters where law and personal commitment intersect, technology may assist—but it cannot replace—the human voice.
The couple remains legally unmarried and would need to undergo a new civil ceremony to restore their marital status. Whether they choose to rewrite their vows themselves remains a private decision. But their case has already made public history.
As artificial intelligence continues to blur the line between human expression and machine output, courts, lawmakers, and societies may soon face a fundamental question: in a world where words can be generated at the click of a button, how do we define what it truly means to speak for oneself?
