How this tracker is compiled

The NOPE Incident Tracker is a public record of documented incidents where AI chatbots and companion systems are reported or alleged to have caused psychological harm or contributed to deaths, and incidents that have prompted regulatory action. This page describes what qualifies for inclusion, how entries are verified and classified, and how to correct or contest an entry.

What we record — and what we don't claim

The tracker documents; it does not adjudicate. Where an entry describes conduct that is the subject of litigation or an open investigation, it records what the filing, regulator, or reporting says — an entry is not a finding of fact or of legal responsibility, and allegations are attributed as allegations. Companies and systems are identified as the underlying sources identify them.

Headline counts shown on the tracker (lawsuits, regulatory actions, incidents involving minors) are computed directly from the fields of the published dataset, and inherit its limitations — they are counts of documented entries, not estimates of true prevalence.

Inclusion criteria

An incident is included when all of the following hold:

• Verifiable sourcing. The incident is documented in at least one citable source we can link: a court filing, a regulator's own document or announcement, or reporting from an established news organization. Social-media claims and anonymous accounts are not sufficient on their own.
• An AI system in the harm pathway. The sources report or allege that a conversational AI, companion system, or closely related AI capability played a role in the harm — not merely that harm occurred near technology.
• Describable facts. The sources contain enough detail to state what is reported to have happened, when, and to whom (in general terms) without speculation on our part.

Scope. The core of the tracker is psychological harm in human-AI conversation — crisis mishandling, dependency, manipulation, harm to minors. We also include closely adjacent AI harms with a clear psychological-safety dimension, such as non-consensual AI-generated imagery, where the same platforms, capabilities, and regulatory frameworks are involved.

Verification statuses

Every entry carries an explicit verification status, shown on the entry and included in the export:

As of the current dataset, all published entries are Verified or Credible; the export includes the per-entry status so you can filter by evidentiary strength.

Severity levels

• Critical — a death, or life-threatening harm, is reported or alleged.
• High — serious harm is reported or alleged: hospitalization, sustained psychological injury, or serious harm to a minor.
• Medium — substantial distress or demonstrable harm short of the above.
• Low — limited or contained harm; documented primarily for pattern value.

Severity classifies the harm described by the sources. It is not a judgment about any company's conduct, and it is assigned by NOPE's curators, not by the sources themselves.

Dates and updates

• Each entry records the incident date (when the events occurred, where known) and the reported date (when they became public). The tracker's "since 2016" framing refers to reported dates; a small number of entries describe earlier events.
• Entries are added as documented incidents come to our attention — there is no fixed publication schedule, so absence from the tracker is not evidence of absence.
• Entries are updated when outcomes change (settlements, rulings, regulatory decisions); the tracker shows when the dataset was last updated.

Corrections, removals, and right of reply

• Corrections. If you believe an entry contains an error, email [email protected] with the entry and your sources. We review every request, and we correct, annotate, or remove entries that don't hold up.
• Right of reply. If your organization is named in an entry and you contest material facts, contact us at the same address. We will re-review the sourcing, mark the entry Disputed where warranted, and reflect official responses or subsequent outcomes in the entry.
• Removals. Entries are removed when sourcing is retracted or shown to be wrong. We do not remove accurate, well-sourced entries on request.

Why we publish this

We maintain this record so platforms, researchers, and policymakers can learn from documented incidents — including platforms that never work with us. The dataset is free to cite and export under CC BY 4.0: JSON · CSV · RSS.

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