1. What happened in the Colombian Supreme Court AI-writing controversy?

Colombia’s Supreme Court rejected a cassation appeal after an AI-detection tool concluded the legal filing was mostly machine-generated. The court cited Winston AI results claiming the document contained only about 7% human-written content. The ruling dismissed the appeal as inadmissible based on that analysis.

2. Why did the Colombian court reject the lawyer’s appeal?

The court said AI-detection software showed strong evidence that the filing had been generated by artificial intelligence rather than written by the lawyer. Judges argued that if the document was not genuinely authored by the legal professional, it could not be treated as a valid court submission.

3. Why did the controversy escalate after the ruling?

Lawyers tested the court’s own ruling using the same AI detection software. The tool reportedly flagged the judgment as 93% AI-generated, raising questions about whether the court relied on unreliable technology.

4. What AI detection tools were used in the case?

The court cited Winston AI as its primary detection tool when evaluating the legal filing. Other tools were reportedly used for confirmation, while independent reviewers later tested the ruling using Winston AI and GPTZero.

5. Why are AI detection tools considered unreliable?

AI detectors analyse statistical writing patterns such as vocabulary predictability, sentence length, and “burstiness” (natural variation in writing rhythm). Experts say these signals often overlap with formal writing styles used in legal documents and academic texts, leading to frequent false positives.

6. What evidence suggests AI detectors produce false positives?

Lawyers ran older documents through the same detection tools. A legal filing from 2019 and a 2020 undergraduate thesis—both written before modern generative AI—were flagged as 95% and 100% AI-generated, demonstrating potential inaccuracies.

7. What legal concerns does this case raise about AI in courts?

The case raises concerns about due process and access to justice. Critics argue that rejecting legal filings based on unverifiable AI-detection tools could undermine fair legal procedures if the software produces unreliable results.

8. What rules does Colombia have for using AI in the judiciary?

Colombia adopted guidelines in December 2024 regulating AI use by courts. Judges may use AI for administrative tasks or document summaries but must not rely on it to evaluate evidence, interpret law, or make judicial decisions.

Colombia court AI ruling sparks detector backlash

Written by Brie CarterPublished Mar. 4 2026

Colombia’s Supreme Court rejected a cassation appeal after running the lawyer’s filing through AI-detection software that concluded the document was largely machine-generated.

The court said the text was analysed using the Winston AI tool, which indicated the submission contained only about 7% human-written content.

“Faced with a well-founded suspicion that the brief submitted by the attorney had not been drafted by the legal professional himself, the court submitted the text to the Winston AI tool,”

The ruling stated.

Legal experts later tested the court’s own ruling with the same software and reported that it appeared to contain 93% AI-generated text, fuelling criticism over the reliability of such tools.

The controversy quickly spread across legal circles after attorney Emmanuel Alessio Velasquez posted the results on X, arguing the outcome exposed the “methodological fragility” of using AI detectors as legal evidence.

Further experiments by lawyers showed similar inconsistencies, with some historical legal documents and academic papers written before modern AI tools existed also being flagged as AI-generated.

The episode has intensified debate over AI detection technology as researchers warn such tools rely on statistical writing patterns that often misclassify formal legal writing, academic texts and work produced by non-native English speakers.