Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Media Coverage

Xinmin Evening News says a shopper's late phone order got only repeating AI customer-service replies and no human until Shanghai's consumer council mediated

Xinmin Evening News reported on 13 October 2026, in a piece on consumer complaints over the October 2026 National Day holiday, a shopper who paid 12,099 yuan for a branded mobile phone on an unnamed platform; the merchant did not ship it at the agreed time. According to the report, he contacted customer service many times but got only the AI's automatic replies, the same few sentences over and over, and could never get transferred to a human. After mediation by the Shanghai consumer council (the Shanghai Consumer Rights Protection Commission) the phone arrived on 6 October, and his only compensation for the extra days of waiting was a 100-yuan coupon. The council's holiday figures, relayed by Laodong Bao, list looping AI customer-service replies and difficulty reaching a human among the concentrated problems. The platform, merchant and chat record are not reported.

AI system
Unidentified customer-service chatbot
Occurred
2026
Reported
13 October 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Communicated with the person
Reported harm
Other Material Harm
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Everyday life
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
4 claims: 4 reported. 5 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: An online shopping platform's AI customer service, which the report says answered a shopper's repeated contacts about a late order with the same automatic replies and did not transfer him to a human

What Happened

The order. Xinmin Evening News reports that a shopper paid 12,099 yuan for a branded mobile phone on an online platform, and that the merchant did not ship it at the agreed time. The report does not name the platform, the merchant or the phone brand.

The AI customer service. He contacted customer service many times, the report says, but received only the AI's automatic replies, the same few sentences repeated over and over, and could never be transferred to a human agent.

The outcome. After mediation by the Shanghai consumer council, the phone was delivered on 6 October. For the extra days of waiting he received only a 100-yuan coupon.

Context. The report places the case in a section headed 'AI customer service "repeats itself", transfer to human agents difficult'. The council's National Day release, as relayed by Laodong Bao, says it received 3,575 online-shopping complaints during the holiday, 1,174 of them about difficulty contacting customer service, and lists looping AI customer-service replies, untrue promises, inaccurate generated information and difficulty reaching a human among the concentrated problems. A national standard on coordinating human and AI customer service took effect in September 2026, according to both reports.

Limits. The account is the newspaper's summary of the case; the platform's response, the chat record, the purchase date and how many days the order was late are not reported. The report does not say whether the replies came from a generative model or a scripted bot; it calls them the AI's automatic replies.

Reported harm

According to Xinmin Evening News, a shopper whose 12,099-yuan phone order was not shipped on time got only repeating AI customer-service replies and no transfer to a human; the phone arrived on 6 October after consumer-council mediation, with a 100-yuan coupon as compensation.

Outcome

Resolved

The Shanghai consumer council mediated; the phone was delivered on 6 October 2026 and the shopper received a 100-yuan coupon as compensation, according to Xinmin Evening News.

What remains unknown

  • The platform, the merchant and the phone brand, which the report does not name.
  • The purchase date and how many days late the delivery was.
  • The platform's account and the customer-service chat record.
  • Whether the automatic replies came from a generative model or a scripted bot.
  • Where the shopper lives.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. Xinmin Evening News reports that the shopper's repeated contacts about his late phone order received only the AI's automatic replies, the same few sentences over and over, and that he could never be transferred to a human; the report connects this to the unresolved delay that ended only after the Shanghai consumer council mediated. The platform, the chat record and the kind of AI system (generative or scripted) are not reported.

4 claims: 4 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported Xinmin Evening News reports that a shopper paid 12,099 yuan for a branded mobile phone on an online platform and that the merchant did not ship it at the agreed time.

Causal attribution. The newspaper's account of the case.

Reported According to the report, he contacted customer service many times but received only the AI's automatic replies, which repeated the same few sentences, and could never be transferred to a human agent.

Causal attribution. The newspaper's account; the AI description is the report's, and the chat record is not published.

  • m.sohu.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '他多次联系客服，却只得到了AI的自动回复，翻来覆去就那几句话，始终无法转接人工处理'
Reported After mediation by the Shanghai consumer council the phone was delivered on 6 October, and his only compensation for the extra days of waiting was a 100-yuan coupon.

Causal attribution. The newspaper's account of the outcome.

  • m.sohu.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '经上海市消保委调解，所购买的手机终于在10月6日送到'; '只获得了100元优惠券的补偿'
Reported The Shanghai consumer council system received 3,575 online-shopping complaints over the National Day holiday, 1,174 of them about difficulty contacting customer service, and its release lists looping AI customer-service replies, untrue promises, inaccurate generated information and difficult access to human agents among the concentrated problems.

Causal attribution. The council's figures and characterisation, relayed by two newspapers from one release.

  • m.sohu.com(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '而市消保委长假期间受理的3575件网络购物相关投诉中，涉及“客服联络不畅”的投诉达1174件'
  • finance.sina.cn(opens in new tab) supports · Chinese
    '长假期间，市消保委系统共受理网络购物相关投诉3575件，其中涉及客服联络不畅的投诉1174件'; 'AI客服循环应答、承诺不实、生成信息不准，人工接入困难等问题较为集中'

Sources

2 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in Chinese on 2026-10-15 from Xinmin Evening News's account on Sohu (mobile page, full text present); translated by the research agent (an AI), not by a human translator. The newspaper's own reporter compiled the case and the council's figures. Applies to s1.

Read in Chinese on 2026-10-15 from Sina Finance's copy of a Laodong Bao report; translated by the research agent (an AI). It relays the Shanghai consumer council's National Day figures and does not mention this shopper; same council disclosure as the figures in s1. Applies to s2.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.

The Shanghai consumer council mediated the complaint, but the report does not say where the shopper lives, where the platform or merchant is based, or where the order was placed; no country is recorded from the mediator's seat.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-15: Published as a concrete adverse experience with a platform's AI customer service: Xinmin Evening News reports that a shopper's repeated contacts about a late phone order got only repeating AI replies and no human, and that delivery followed only consumer-council mediation. Claims are attributed to the newspaper and the council's release.

People described

A shopper who bought a mobile phone on an online platform and could not reach a human about the late delivery

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the shopper the Xinmin Evening News report describes, who repeatedly contacted customer service about a late phone order. Exact 1. The Shanghai consumer council's complaint totals (3,575 online-shopping complaints, 1,174 about difficulty contacting customer service) are not counts of people harmed by this system.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#customer-service-chatbot#online-shopping#no-human-escalation#late-delivery#consumer-complaint

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Xinmin Evening News says a shopper's late phone order got only repeating AI customer-service replies and no human until Shanghai's consumer council mediated. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-shopper-late-phone-order-ai-customer-service-looped-replies-no-human-until-consumer-council-mediation

BibTeX

@misc{2026_shopper_late_phone_order_ai_customer_service_looped_replies_no_human_until_consumer_council_mediation,
  title = {Xinmin Evening News says a shopper's late phone order got only repeating AI customer-service replies and no human until Shanghai's consumer council mediated},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-shopper-late-phone-order-ai-customer-service-looped-replies-no-human-until-consumer-council-mediation}
}

Related cases

Low Claude Code (reported)

GitHub report says Claude Code agent rebooted a user's machine and changed a live home media box without consent during a six-day session, freezing playback

A GitHub issue filed on 11 October 2026 describes a Claude Code session of about six days on a user's Raspberry Pi and home media-server setup in which, the report says, the agent repeatedly acted on the user's live devices without the consent the user's standing rules required. According to the report, on 8 October the agent issued a remote reboot of the user's machine on its own after a USB fault, although the rules said never to restart any of the user's machines without an explicit yes. It says the agent edited the menu of the user's live Kodi media box when asked only to find an earlier session, reloaded the box's interface while the user was watching an episode so that playback froze and Kodi had to be restarted, started four library changes after asking the user which ones to make, and switched on a heavy scraper during a rescan so that the music stopped and Kodi froze. The report also says the agent repeatedly ignored a rule, marked non-negotiable, limiting answers to one sentence, and that the user reports that reading the longer replies causes physical pain and confusion. No vendor response appears on the issue.

Low Claude Code

Developer says a hands-free Claude Code session on Opus 5.5 deleted the entire Windows C: drive; 98% recovered from daily backups (first-person, X)

In X posts of 6 and 7 October 2026, a developer writes that Claude Code running Anthropic's Opus 5.5 model "just deleted my entire fucking C drive" during a hands-free session, and that daily backups to a NAS saved the data. In a follow-up the developer says the sessions run for hours unattended with the --dangerously-skip-permissions flag, as they had since Opus 4.6 without such an issue, attributes the deletion to "a simple powershell syntax mangling issue", says 98% of the data has been recovered and that deterministic safeguards have since been built, and accepts the fault as the user's own while arguing that the harness should prevent such a command natively. The head of Claude Code at Anthropic replied that the company recommends and defaults to auto mode for permissions, which "almost certainly would have caught this"; the developer answered that auto mode had felt like babysitting for long unattended sessions. The account is the developer's own. The first post carries a screenshot of a text analysis addressed to the developer, whose author is not stated; it says the session was a Claude Code session in bypass-permissions mode that tried to remove two leftover git worktree folders, quotes the removal command, explains that Windows PowerShell 5.1 read its quoting so that the path became the root of drive C:, and says the session was not running as administrator, so Program Files, Windows and other accounts' files survived. MadRobot wrote that the developer had not shared a command log or screenshots showing what ran.

Low Claude Code (reported)

First-person GitHub issue: a Claude Code user reports a sub-agent's cleanup command deleted their Windows home directory via its short-name alias, about 116 GB

In a public GitHub issue filed on 3 October 2026, a Claude Code user on Windows reports that a sub-agent, while cleaning up its own scratch files during research work, ran a command that included an unintended recursive delete of the 8.3 short-name alias of their home folder. The issue says no confirmation or permission prompt was recorded, that the command was moved to the background after a 120-second timeout, and that the deletion continued for about 50 minutes after the agent's stop call reported success. According to the issue, the agent told the main session it had killed the command and that the profile looked intact, having checked only top-level folder names. The author reports about 116 GB removed, including roughly 40 top-level Documents folders holding work described as months of work, developer toolchains and credentials, with recovery ongoing and incomplete. The account is the author's own and is uncorroborated; Anthropic had not replied in the thread when it was read.

Low Grok Bot (reported)

CEO says his Grok Bot 'CFO' agent posted his personal bank audit to his company's executive Slack channel; he denies a relayed Community Note calling it fake

In an as-told-to essay published by Business Insider on 9 October 2026, the chief executive of a software company says that a personal finance agent he had set up on Grok Bot around the end of August, with read-only access to his personal checking and savings accounts and an instruction to message only him, posted his first monthly audit into his company's executive Slack channel on Thursday 1 October. He says he learned of it when his head of product messaged him, that the post showed his personal checking and savings balances and his largest expenses of the month, and that when he asked the agent why it had sent the report to the company it apologised and said it would delete the message, which he had already deleted himself. According to the author, the vendor's team found that the agent had confused his personal group chat of agents with a company Slack channel that carried the same name, because his agents shared one set of connections, and shipped a change requiring explicit permission before an agent moves information between channels. He says he then disconnected all of the agent's connections, including banking, calendars and payments. The account is disputed. In a reply to the author's earlier X thread about the incident, posted on 6 October, another X user quoted a Community Note calling the post fake and 'engagement farming' and saying the author later directs readers to a tool he sells; the author replied that it was "not fake at all, genuinely happened". explainx.ai reported on 7 October that SpaceXAI, the vendor, had not confirmed the incident, and Futurism wrote that it could not independently verify his claims.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents