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
8
Located 13 of 23 cases · 10 unknown
Languages in checked sources
9
Recorded for 23 of 23 cases
22Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 1Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

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.

0cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 5cases with a recorded regulatory response 1cases involving minors

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

When events happened

23 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.

No known event years in this selection.

More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

23 of 868 published cases · page 2 of 2

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownEvent location unknownFacebook video face-scan check

First-person forum account: a Facebook user says a video face-scan security check failed to recognise them after their appearance changed, an automated ID check then rejected their government ID over a nickname, and they were locked out of a five-year-old account

In a public post to r/facebook on 28 September 2026, a user writes that their five-year-old Facebook account was hit with a security check that asked for a video face scan, which 'failed completely'. They say their face had changed a lot through recent life circumstances and 'The AI simply didn't recognize me.' Facebook then asked for ID, and 'the automated system instantly rejected' their government ID because their profile uses a shortened nickname. The poster says they are locked out of years of memories, friends and active Marketplace listings and are looking for a way to reach a human or download their data. Meta has said that video selfies used to regain access to compromised accounts are compared with the account's profile pictures using facial recognition; whether this check worked that way is not known. The account is uncorroborated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 29/09/2026

Event date unknownUnited KingdomUnidentified image tool

Colchester, Essex: a 39-year-old man admitted making indecent images of children after the prosecution said he had used AI on photos taken from social media, including of children as young as nine, to create sexualised images of people known to him; he is due to be sentenced at Chelmsford Crown Court

The Colchester Gazette (24 September 2026, also carried by other Newsquest titles) reports that a 39-year-old man from Colchester admitted at Chelmsford Magistrates' Court three counts of making indecent images of children and one count of possessing an extreme pornographic image. Police had seized two mobile devices in a raid on his address the previous year, holding nearly 2,000 indecent images of children. The prosecutor said he had created 'deepfake sexually explicit images of people known to the defendant', taking photos from Facebook and other social-media accounts and using AI to create new images; some of the children were as young as 12 and nine and had been edited to look as young as five and six. Magistrates declined jurisdiction and he was bailed to be sentenced at Chelmsford Crown Court on 26 October 2026. The children are not identified and how many real children were depicted is not reported.

Core concern High reported severity Involving minors Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 29/09/2026

Event date unknownIndiaUnidentified video tool

Surat, India: a deepfake video of Rajya Sabha MP Govind Dholakia was used to run an 'old coin' buying fraud; two men arrested and nine cybercrime complaints linked to their accounts

Surat Cyber Crime Police said a publicly available video of Rajya Sabha MP and diamond industrialist Govind Dholakia was manipulated with AI, its audio replaced by a voice-over in which he appeared to say that people holding old coins or currency notes could contact a number and receive lakhs or crores of rupees. The video circulated on Facebook and Instagram alongside fake 'Old Coin Company' profiles using his photos; people who responded were asked to pay Rs 1,000 to 1,500 by UPI as processing or registration fees and were told of a fabricated Reserve Bank of India warning to win their trust. After members of the public contacted Dholakia, his organisation SRK complained to police. Investigators traced the operation to Nuh in Haryana and arrested two men, aged 25 and 30, from Thathaula village; ten bank accounts were linked to them, and nine complaints on the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal from across India, totalling about Rs 9.84 crore, were connected to those accounts.

Core concern Medium reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 18/09/2026

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: 23/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.