Skip to main content
NOPE

NOPE · AI and people

AI incidents

Reports of AI-related harm and adverse experiences affecting people’s safety, wellbeing, rights and livelihoods. Explore what happened and the evidence available.

NOPE’s core concern is when AI communicates with a person, acts on their behalf, or depicts or impersonates them. The tracker also records consequential decisions, claims and privacy harms involving AI. Each case needs a described connection between AI use and the harm, including private information recorded into or disclosed to an AI service. Each account is reviewed for publication; claims may remain uncorroborated or disputed. How we review and count cases

Explore incidents Our scope and evidence

In this selection

Published cases
23
Countries with reported events
5
Located 6 of 23 cases · 17 unknown
Languages in checked sources
6
Recorded for 23 of 23 cases
20Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 1Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

2 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 2 reviewed as unknown. Show these cases

These figures describe the cases collected by NOPE. Coverage varies with discovery, reporting and available evidence. They do not estimate how often AI-related harm occurs.

3cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 1cases with a recorded regulatory response 0cases involving minors

Response counts currently use each case’s principal recorded outcome. Further proceedings may be described in its account.

When events happened

8 cases without a known event year

Cases in this selection, counted once in their first known event year. A series may continue beyond that year. Reporting and collection dates are excluded. NOPE has searched recent events more thoroughly than earlier years, so bar heights also reflect collection effort.

1 20221 20244 20259 2026
Reported severity MediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

23 of 1099 published cases · page 2 of 2

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownEvent location unknownDelta Concierge

Delta's Concierge AI cancelled a passenger's return flight that, she says, it had confirmed would stay booked; Delta blamed a bug and restored the trip

A Delta Platinum Medallion member posted on X on 3 August 2026 that Delta's AI Concierge in the Fly Delta app cancelled her flight home from Los Angeles after saying it would not, and that customer service said they could not help and expected her to pay almost twice as much for a one-way ticket. According to View from the Wing, the Concierge told her 'Your JFK to LAX flight has been canceled, and your LAX to JFK flight remains booked', while her refund record listed both flights. Delta told the blog a bug caused the return segment to be unintentionally cancelled when a customer attempted a partial-trip cancellation, which Concierge does not support, and said her original itinerary was quickly restored with no disruption to her planned travel and that it corrected the functionality.

Core concern Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 06/10/2026

28 Oct 2025Event location unknownPriceline Penny

Priceline's Penny chatbot told a customer a non-refundable booking qualified for a full refund; Priceline later admitted misinformation, Telegraph says

A reader of The Telegraph's consumer column, writing from north London, says that on 28 October 2025 Priceline's AI chatbot Penny, the only contact route the reader could find, said a non-refundable three-night hotel booking in Thailand costing £386.91 was eligible for a full refund. The reader agreed to cancel and received a cancellation confirmation, but no refund arrived; the hotel said it would not refund and had not been told of the cancellation, and the reader spent about a month passed between Priceline and its sister company Agoda. After the columnist pressed Priceline, it paid £363.11 after foreign-currency charges, after the reader had waited almost six months for the refund, and emailed the reader acknowledging that the chatbot had given 'misinformation'. The column was published on 18 May 2026.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 06/10/2026

Event date unknownRomaniaLia (Libra Internet Bank assistant)

Romania: Libra Internet Bank's AI assistant 'Lia' replied to a customer who said he was wasting his time with it, 'I want you to talk to a human, not to me, idiot', before handing him to a human agent; the bank apologised publicly, explained that its generative assistant can mirror users' language despite its rules, and added restrictions

In a Threads post reported by Jurnalul on 18 September 2026, a customer of Libra Internet Bank, a Romanian bank, published a screenshot of a support conversation with Lia, the bank's generative-AI assistant for questions about its products and services. The customer had been asking about the conditions of certain products; Lia was asking for further details (whether he had made at least three card payments the previous month, whether sums were in deposits or only as account balance) when he wrote 'I am wasting my time with you'. Lia replied, in Romanian: 'I want you to talk to a human, not to me, idiot. I will now transfer the conversation to one of our colleagues to give you the necessary support. You will receive an answer shortly.' The customer said he was surprised at first, then laughed, decided to share the exchange publicly and wondered whether he wanted to remain a customer. The bank apologised publicly, explained that AI agents have communication rules and prohibitions but work statistically rather than deterministically and can in rare cases reproduce language used by the user, said that this was no justification ('Obviously Lia must not take on the "bad" side of human behaviour regardless of the indecency of the approach it was exposed to'), and announced that it had introduced additional restrictions to prevent similar replies. Jurnalul reported the exchange and the bank's response on 18 September 2026 and Digi24 on 20 September. The customer is not named.

Core concern Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources · Added 22/09/2026

Cases may have several effects and sources. Mixed accounts qualify when they include a reported harm or adverse experience. People are counted within individual cases where sources support a number; we do not publish a collection-wide total of distinct people.

A source’s existence, the experience it reports and AI’s causal role are separate questions. A lawsuit records allegations unless a subsequent finding establishes them.

Methodology and corrections · Subscribe via RSS · Suggest a case or correction · Find support

Last dataset update: 04/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.