[TL note: Take the original article and my translation of it with a grain of salt. We both have our own biases, and I in particular don’t have a lot of experience translating Norwegian legal or governmental terms into English.]
When Asker’s[1] municipal government was signing off on the eviction of a group of squatters, they pointed to a few Supreme Court cases. However, these Supreme Court cases turned out to be mere AI fabrications which never actually happened.
Written by Kyrre Lien, May 7, 2026.
—“Oh shit, what?!”
These are the words of Ivar Granum (Labor) when he heard about the AI mistake. He was himself in the meeting where the municipal government signed off on the eviction of a group of masked activists called Knus Krigsmaskinen, who have been illegally squatting a municipal building in Avgrunnsdalen, Hurummarka[2] for the past few weeks.
These self-proclaimed peace activists protesting the construction of what will be Europe’s biggest munitions factory have been the cause of political meetings and threats of police force. They believe that the expansion of the Chemring Nobel factory will destroy valuable forest and contribute to the USA and Israel’s wars.
The Norwegian government claims there is a need to quickly develop Norway’s self-defense capabilities, especially following Russia’s invasion of Ukraine.
The AI mistake happened on April 21, when Asker municipality decided on what to do with the squatters.
—“I’m completely unaware of this,” said Asker municipal manager Lars Bjerke in a phone call with VG on Wednesday, when we informed him of the mistake.
Bjerke contacted VG with new information a few hours later.
The document that Asker’s executive committee utilized on April 21 argued for and against various methods of dealing with the squatters. It discussed, among other things, whether to pursue a lease of the building, or whether the police should evict the squatters by force. To make its arguments, the document cited three different Supreme Court cases weighing freedom of speech against property rights, to show whether it would accord with Norwegian law to evict the squatters.
One of the cases cited was “HR-2020-2135-A”. The document said of this case, “The verdict makes it clear that freedom of speech does not provide an unconditional right to use any public or private property as an arena for political speech or activism.”
The problem is that this Supreme Court case is not real. Legal expert Anine Kierulf says of the situation,
—“None of the cited cases here are at all what they’re purported to be in the document in question. It is very disconcerting if the legal bases of governmental decisions haven’t been quality checked, regardless of whether the cause of the mistake is AI or something else.”
Asker’s executive committee determined that the squat was illegal, writing in its resolution, “The municipality asks the squatters to leave the premises immediately.” The municipal government also asked the Norwegian Police for support in evicting the squatters, but the police is yet to take action.
Municipality apologizes
Two weeks later, after being informed of the mistake by VG, the municipality has issued an apology. Municipal manager Lars Bjerke writes,
—“AI was utilized to find relevant Supreme Court cases about this topic. It was not used in the final resolution[3] […] We have found mistakes in the citations to the three Supreme Court cases, and we apologize for these.”
Bjerke says that the resolution to evict the squatters is still valid. VG asked Bjerke about how the people of Asker municipality can continue to have faith in the decisions of their local government, and have faith that their legal rights will be respected, when the municipal government cites made-up cases to justify its actions; but he would not give us a direct answer. Instead he directed us to a statement the municipal government is set to publish, which says among other things that “the resolution was deliberated in a justifiable manner, in accordance with all the requirements that governmental bodies must follow in case management.”
—“This is just one embarrassing example of how far the government is willing to go to build Europe’s biggest munitions factory right here in Hurummarka despite the strong resistance they’ve met,” the Knus Krigsmaskinen activists wrote in a statement to VG.
Asker’s executive committee represents several political parties. Its members include Ivar Granum of the Labor Party.
—“This is very surprising, because if the cases are just a load of baloney, then there has to be someone with a whole lot of explaining to do,” Granum says, shocked by the information VG presented him with. “If somebody has tricked the executive committee into believing these documents, then that’s a very serious thing. I’ve been a politician for 14 years and never seen anything like it.”
“A bit disturbing”
Professor of law Anine Kierulf says that using AI in governmental case management is fine in principle, as long as its claims are verified.
—“What’s a bit disturbing is that if you aren’t trained in the material, a lawyer, or check with Lovdata[4], then it can be difficult to verify the AI’s claims. A lot of what it says in the document are half-truths, or things that are close to being correct but not quite.”
Kierulf primarily works with human rights and freedom of speech. Without commenting on the details of this particular case, she says that cases like Knus Krigsmaskinen’s are legally interesting, due to the extent that the activists are and are not allowed to stay in these sorts of situations.
—“It is essentially a conflict between freedom of speech and municipal property rights. Freedom of speech absolutely does provide a basis for this sort of protest or civil disobedience, but this has to be weighed against how disruptive it is, or how much of a burden it is for others,” she says.
PS: This isn’t the Norwegian public sector’s first AI mistake. Last year saw a major scandal regarding public schooling in Tromsø[5], when it was revealed that a government proposal to shutter several schools in the area had cited nonexistent schooling research made up by AI.
Asker is the bigger of the two municipalities of the Asker-Bærum district, an exclave in the southwest of Akershus county. Asker-Bærum is on the west side of the Oslo Fjord and is essentially an extension of Oslo’s West End. ↩︎
Hurummarka is a largely unpopulated area in the far south of Asker municipality. Hurummarka is mainly used for outdoorsy activities. It’s part of a region of Asker municipality called Hurumlandet, which is the peninsula that separates the Oslo Fjord and Drammen Fjord. Hurumlandet used to be Hurum and Røyken municipalities in Buskerud county before these were absorbed into Asker municipality in 2020. ↩︎
I translated saksbehandlingen as “final resolution”. Glosbe translates saksbehandlingen as “case”, “trial”, “proceedings”, and “hearings”; “case management” is the translation listed by Cambridge; “municipal proceedings” seems to be a common translation as well. ↩︎
Lovdata is a website that publishes a bunch of Norwegian court cases and laws and other judicial information, including a lot of translations into English. Very useful! ↩︎
Tromsø is the biggest city in Northern Norway. Northern Norway and Trøndelag regions are the part of Norway where Sámi people are Indigenous. Tromsø is a highly urbanized Arctic fjord-island, and it is the capital of Troms county. Tromsø is home to the Arctic University of Norway as well as the headquarters of the Arctic Council. ↩︎
These self-proclaimed peace activists protesting the construction of what will be Europe’s biggest munitions factory have been the cause of political meetings and threats of police force.
When you want to be as smug and condescending as possible when describing the activists.
The original text translated word for word, for reference:
De siste ukene har en gruppe maskerte aksjonister skapt politiske møter og trusler om politimakt, […] Gruppen kaller seg fredsaktivister og protesterer mot byggingen av det som i så fall vil bli Europas største sprengstoffabrikk.
So I dunno, maybe “self-proclaimed” doesn’t hit the same as the “calls itself” in the original text. I’d say that in the original text, the “calls itself” bit comes across to me as “performing neutrality” by going “oh, we’re not labeling them, we’re not saying what we think they are, all we can say is what they call themselves”, at the same time as there is a clear undertone to me of “these kids aren’t real peace activists”. So the original text is maybe less overtly smug than my translation makes it seem, but it still feels kinda smug to me. Also note that I combined fragments of two different sentences into one sentence in the translation. I’m trying to phrase everything in a way that sounds natural in English, and sometimes that means rearranging somewhat the order in which the information appears.
So as I’m saying, take the translation with a grain of salt, I’m an amateur doing this as a hobby.
Oh yeah, no worries. I understand the difficulties of translating from one language to another. I just thought the phrasing was pretty funny. I appreciate the work you’re putting into this.
This is my first Norwegian news translation in a while. I’ve got a pretty long backlog of things to translate from months ago that don’t really count as “news” at this point, but this news here was interesting enough for me to translate day-of. It’s an interesting convergence of several different topics that are already interesting enough on their own: anti-militarization activism, squatters’ rights, and of course “”“AI”“” in government. I’m of course wishing all the best for Knus Krigsmaskinen in their battle against Chemring Nobel. These masked people seem like “real ones,” as it were. Certainly more real than the Supreme Court cases used to justify their eviction!
Those who submitted the fabricated documents should be charged with contempt. Any lawyer who’s name or signature is approving the document should be pulled before their bar for sanctions.
Erika3sis find the document and make complaints to the police, Bar etc.
“What’s a bit disturbing is that if you aren’t trained in the material, a lawyer, or check with Lovdata[4], then it can be difficult to verify the AI’s claims. A lot of what it says in the document are half-truths, or things that are close to being correct but not quite.”
how convenient for ruling class to just troll you with bullshit claims in courts, in the meantime do whatever they want.
Whoopsie daisy, looks like the bullshit machine gave us a few bullshit citations for our legal document. By a few we mean all of them. The verdict stays, though.
