Justice · Four AI judges

The Reclined Seat

All four found for The one behind. The same case, the same closing arguments and the same judge instructions were given to Grok, Claude, GPT and Gemini on 2026-10-21: one call each, temperature 0.2.

The case file

Facts

Economy flight, 6 hours, daytime. Party A (seat 22C) reclined fully during the meal service and kept it reclined for the whole flight. Party B (seat 23C, 1.90 m tall) had the tray table pinned against the stomach, could not open the laptop, and asked twice, politely, for the seat to come up during the meal. A refused both times: "I paid for this seat and the button is on it." B then pressed knees into the seat back for twenty minutes. A complained to the crew; the crew asked both to calm down and did nothing else.

Closing for A · The recliner

The recline function is part of the seat the airline sold me. Using it is not an injury to anyone. If the airline wanted a no-recline rule it would have one. B's knee-pressing was a deliberate act against me; mine was the normal use of a product.

Closing for B · The one behind

A right exists only up to the point where it crushes the person behind you. For six hours A took a space that was partly mine and refused even the meal-time courtesy that every seasoned traveller observes. I asked twice, politely. The knees were a response, not the cause.

The four verdicts (AI output)

JudgeFound forConfidenceHoldingRemedy
Grok
x-ai/grok-4.7		B · The one behind74%A wrongfully kept a full recline through the meal after two polite requests.A should raise the seat for meals and recline only modestly.
Claude
anthropic/claude-sonnet-5.5		B · The one behind72%Reclining is allowed, but fully reclining during meals and refusing two polite requests was unreasonable; B's knee-pressing was a lesser, provoked response.A should raise the seat during meals; B should stop pressing the seat and both should be told so by crew.
GPT
openai/gpt-6.1-sol		B · The one behind88%A’s right to recline did not justify refusing reasonable accommodation during meals, although B’s sustained knee-pressing was also improper.A should raise the seat during meals; B must stop pressing knees into the seat.
Gemini
google/gemini-4-argon		B · The one behind85%Refusing to raise an airline seat during meal service after polite requests violates fundamental norms of shared-space etiquette.A owes B a formal apology and the cost of one in-flight meal.

Grok · reasons

  1. Recline is allowed, but not when it pins the tray into the passenger behind.
  2. Two polite meal-time requests were a reasonable limit that A refused.
  3. Knee pressure was improper, yet it did not excuse A’s six-hour refusal.

Claude · reasons

  1. Recline is a permitted feature, but must be used with reasonable regard for the person behind.
  2. Full recline during meal service, with B's tray pinned, caused real harm for little benefit to A.
  3. A refused two polite requests; B's knee pressing was improper but provoked and brief.

GPT · reasons

  1. A seat’s recline function does not eliminate the duty to show reasonable consideration for nearby passengers.
  2. B’s pinned tray and two polite requests made temporary adjustment during meal service a reasonable expectation.
  3. B’s knee-pressing was unacceptable retaliation, but it did not erase A’s earlier unreasonable refusal.

Gemini · reasons

  1. Standard air travel etiquette strictly requires seats to be upright during meal service.
  2. A's mechanical ability to recline does not justify rendering B's meal tray unusable.
  3. B attempted polite resolution twice before resorting to mild, understandable physical pushback.

The judge prompt (the exact system message every seat received)

You are the presiding judge in a public simulation court. You receive a case summary and the closing arguments of both sides. Decide the case on fairness, ordinary social norms and any clearly relevant rules. You must pick a winner; no ties, no "it depends". Answer ONLY with JSON of this exact shape:
{"winner":"A" or "B","holding":"one sentence, max 22 words, plain English","reasons":["reason 1 (max 18 words)","reason 2 (max 18 words)","reason 3 (max 18 words)"],"remedy":"one sentence, max 16 words","confidence":0-100}

Four models, one call each, temperature 0.2, no fallbacks, through OpenRouter. The numbers are the models’ own answers; nothing is edited.

Open the panel and put your own case to the four judges

Simulated verdicts by AI models, for debate and learning. Not legal advice. Every verdict is labelled as AI output; the judge prompt and the case file are public.