In one sentence
In procedural terms a screenshot is not an Urkunde (a formal document) but an object of visual inspection: without statutory evidentiary force, freely assessed — which is why generative AI does not suddenly make it worthless, but does not make it any safer either.
The most widespread misconception
Anyone who submits a screenshot is producing not a written instrument but an image. The ZPO (the German Code of Civil Procedure) treats electronic documents in principle as an object of visual inspection (§ 371 Abs. 1 S. 2 ZPO), not as an Urkunde. A private document under § 416 ZPO presupposes a handwritten signature — which a messenger message does not have. The consequence is not worthlessness: what is missing is merely the statutory presumption of authenticity.
Four categories, treated very differently
- Screenshot, photo, chat history, file — object of visual inspection under § 371 Abs. 1 S. 2 ZPO, without any statutory rule of evidence.
- Document with a qualified electronic signature — § 371a Abs. 1 ZPO: the rules on private documents apply accordingly, and there is a prima facie appearance of authenticity.
- Public electronic documents — § 371a Abs. 3 ZPO, with the force of public documents.
- Signed paper — a private document under § 416 ZPO, with full evidentiary force for the declaration of the issuer.
Only the second and third categories confer a statutory advantage; everything else ends up in the free assessment of the evidence.
Why the qualified signature makes the difference
It is the only case in which the law places a presumption alongside the electronic form: the appearance of authenticity can be shaken only by facts giving rise to serious doubt. Anyone concluding a transaction digitally should therefore know whether they are signing with a simple, an advanced or a qualified signature — procedurally there are worlds between them. Only the qualified signature, moreover, replaces the statutory written form.
What deepfakes change — and what they do not
First the most important point: the ZPO knows no special rule for deepfakes. Manipulated images, voices and videos are treated like any other forgery. What changes is practice: since a convincing forgery can now be produced with little effort, the dispute shifts away from the image and towards metadata, original files, transmission routes and expert evidence (§§ 402 ff. ZPO). An image file without provenance has become weaker as a result; one with a demonstrable chain has not.
Simple denial is often enough already
Because no rule of evidence applies, the other side can simply dispute authenticity. The court then decides according to its free conviction (§ 286 ZPO), on the basis of the overall picture: does the exchange fit the undisputed course of events, are there witnesses, does the original still exist? A screenshot detached from its context convinces less often than a chain.
What you should secure differently today
- Keep the original, not only the image: the file, the email including its headers, the export from the app.
- Secure it in full rather than in extracts — the truncated exchange is the most common point of attack.
- Secure it promptly and record the point in time, while access to the account still exists.
- For important declarations, fall back on a qualified signature or on paper.
Fabricated evidence is no trivial offence
The fact that generative systems can replicate any document changes nothing about § 138 Abs. 1 ZPO: the parties are to make their statements completely and truthfully. Anyone who introduces AI-generated material as genuine breaches that duty — with procedural, professional and, depending on the case, criminal consequences. The same applies to invented citations; that is why we check statutory citations against our own legal library.
Where the software stops
A platform can order documents, make contradictions in the facts visible and check every cited provision for its existence. It cannot determine whether an image file has been manipulated — that is work for an expert. We name openly where our limits lie.
→ AI transparency · Why not ChatGPT · AI, lawyer or chatbot? · Pleadings for firms
