The student received a 0.0 grade after her assignment contained explicit internal system messages from a chatbot, such as “thought for 4 seconds” and “thought for 7 seconds”. These kinds of traces are usually hidden from end users, but in this case they remained visible, providing clear evidence that the student had used AI in violation of the instructions for the assignment.

In the assignment guidelines it was specifically stated that no AI tools were allowed. While detecting AI use is often difficult, this instance was straightforward for the exam committee because the internal identifiers of the chatbot were left in the text. As a result of the violation, the student also faced a one‑month ban on taking exams.

The university also took into account that the student had been involved in a previous case of academic misconduct, and this contributed to the severity of the sanction. The student disputed the assessment and went to court, arguing that her use of AI was only for translation and improving wording, and should not count as fraud. She also claimed that the penalty was disproportionate because it would harm her progress in the program.

However, the court ruled against her. Because the instructions clearly forbade all use of AI for the assignment, the zero grade was upheld and the temporary exam ban was considered proportionate, especially in light of the earlier academic integrity issue. It emerged during the proceedings that she could still graduate in the same academic year by retaking the course or switching classes, and she ultimately did receive her degree, but she lost the lawsuit.

The case highlights how strictly educational institutions are now monitoring AI use, even within AI degree programs. Transparency, clear rules and compliance are becoming increasingly important as AI tools become more widespread and accessible for student work.