AI-generated complaints: when processing becomes more demanding

AI can draft a detailed complaint, objection or statement of claim within a few minutes. That creates a practical challenge for companies: even a letter that looks convincing at first glance still has to be reviewed on its merits and handled reliably.

Rising case numbers, but no proven AI effect

Labour and social courts as well as conciliation bodies report a rising caseload. According to the German Association of Judges, the number of claims at Germany’s 68 social courts rose by an average of ten per cent in 2025 compared with the previous year. At the same time, some bodies are seeing lengthy submissions with extensive references to statutes and judgments, whose form may indicate the use of generative AI.

That does not prove AI is responsible for the rising numbers. Economic developments and changes in the law also affect caseloads. Nor does a particular writing style prove that a text was produced with AI. The observations do show, however, how easily formally polished legal letters can now be created. beck-aktuell reported on this development, citing dpa.

More text does not mean more substance

The term “agentic flooding” is used to discuss how AI could make it easier to create and file large volumes of applications and letters. For companies, the decisive point is less whether AI use can be proven in a given case. What matters is what arrives for processing.

A long letter with numerous source references may contain legitimate claims. It may also cite outdated rules, unsuitable decisions or arguments that have no bearing on the facts. That has to be checked. Length and a legal tone alone say little about the quality or urgency of a matter.

What companies need in order to process this work

When more letters arrive, or longer ones, there has to be a reliable path from intake to decision. That includes in particular:

• A central, structured intake: letters, annexes and deadlines are captured in full.
• An early assessment: topic, responsibility, risk and urgency are quickly apparent.
• Clear review and escalation paths: standard matters and complex cases reach the right people.
• Decisions that can be traced: review steps, assessments and replies are documented.

Automation can support capture, pre-sorting and preparation of documents. It does not, however, replace the expert assessment of a claim.

Technology supports, specialists decide

Our workflow and AI efficiency platform CLAIR can capture incoming matters in a structured way, prepare information for further handling and document processes. How much is automated, and at which points experts review, depends on the matter at hand.

The benchmark remains the outcome: companies must be able to recognise legitimate concerns, assess risks appropriately and stand behind their decisions – regardless of how a letter was produced.