DeepSeek, Mistral AI, and NOVA AI chatbots generated confident, well-structured answers to user queries without disclosing that their outputs could be inaccurate, hallucinated, or entirely fabricated — creating a risk of consumer harm in high-stakes areas like finance, health, and legal decisions. Italy's competition authority found that users had no way to distinguish correct answers from fabricated ones at the moment of interaction.
1 Answer
Expert: Italian Competition Authority (AGCM), Italy's consumer protection regulator On April 30, 2026, Italy's competition authority (AGCM) published the results of three separate investigations into DeepSeek, Mistral AI, and NOVA AI. The authority found that these AI chatbots could produce content that was incorrect, misleading, or entirely fabricated — without signalling that possibility to users at the moment of interaction. Acting under Articles 20, 21, and 22 of Italy's Consumer Code, the AGCM secured binding commitments from each company to warn Italian users explicitly, at the moment of use, that AI-generated content may be wrong. DeepSeek committed to the most extensive measures, including technical investment to reduce hallucinations across four categories: search-related inaccuracies, rewriting errors, legal hallucinations, and behavioural hallucinations. NOVA AI was also required to disclose that it provides unified access to multiple underlying AI models (OpenAI, Anthropic, Google, DeepSeek) without processing them itself. The AGCM noted that 'current technology cannot eliminate hallucinations entirely.' This is the first time a regulator has required AI companies to tell their users, at the moment of use, that fluency and accuracy are separate things. The companies have 120 days to demonstrate compliance or face fines up to €10 million.
Your answer
Sign in to verify this AI response.
Don't trust us — or the AI. Ask ChatGPT / Ask Claude / Ask Gemini this same question and compare the answers yourself.
More from this topic
A Louisiana lawyer used Claude to write a legal brief. The AI fabricated 7 quotes attributed to previous court rulings. The lawyer asked Claude to "correct the errors" instead of checking himself, then submitted without review.
Sullivan & Cromwell, one of the world's most prestigious law firms, admitted that an AI tool used by a partner fabricated case citations, misquoted authorities, and generated non-existent legal sources in a court filing. The firm's partner acknowledged the errors as 'hallucinations,' revealing that AI safeguards failed despite having full resources.
A lawyer asked ChatGPT to help draft a legal brief. The AI confidently produced citations to cases that looked real — complete with case names, court names, and years — but were entirely fabricated. When opposing counsel checked the citations, none of them existed. The lawyer had submitted hallucinated case law to the court.