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 22 of 23 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
8
Recorded for 23 of 23 cases
180Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 23Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

16 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 3 not yet reviewed and 13 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.

6cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 6cases 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

3 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 20172 20214 20246 20257 2026
Reported severity HighMediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

23 of 964 published cases · page 2 of 2

Export JSONExport CSV
Aug 2017United StatesDraftKings and FanDuel apps

Pennsylvania: two men sued DraftKings (one also FanDuel) alleging that AI-driven personalization, targeted promotions and VIP handling fostered gambling addiction; they plead net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and, in one case, suicidal ideation

Christopher Evans (Philadelphia; complaint filed 24 July 2026 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) and Michael Santos (Coatesville, Chester County; complaint filed 29 July 2026 in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas) sued DraftKings and its Pennsylvania affiliate; Santos also sued FanDuel and its parents. Both product-liability complaints, filed by the same law firm, allege that the defendants' sports-betting, daily-fantasy and casino apps are designed to addict, and that the companies 'utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users', operating 'AI-powered engagement platforms' (pleaded on information and belief) and, per DraftKings' 10-K as quoted, 'data science and machine learning' recommendation engines. Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2.1 million with net losses of about US$81,000, received constant targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife. Santos pleads over US$1.164 million wagered on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses, targeted advertising and a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed-out credit cards, the forced sale of his house, diagnoses of depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-exclusion with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023. Both cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 16 September 2026 (2:26-cv-07168 and 2:26-cv-07176). The allegations are untested.

Contextual tracker case High reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources · Added 20/09/2026

16 May 2026United StatesGemini (reported)

Boca Raton father says a Lyft driver's damage-fee photo was AI-generated; Lyft says it offered reimbursement and removed the driver

A Boca Raton, Florida father told WPBF, WPTV and ABC News that after his teenage daughters took a Lyft home from the beach (on Saturday 16 May 2026, according to ABC News), he was charged a $75 damage fee because the driver reported that the riders had left a mess. Lyft customer service told him the driver had sent pictures. One daughter pointed out a Gemini logo in the corner of the photo, which the family took as showing it was AI-generated. The father says Lyft then agreed, apologised and blocked the driver. Lyft's statements say it reviewed the rider's concerns, offered reimbursement and, per its later statements, permanently removed the driver; they do not say the photo was AI-generated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Involving minors Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources · Added 17/09/2026

1 Nov 2024 to 28 Jan 2026United StatesTurnitin AI-text detector

Adelphi accused Orion Newby of AI plagiarism after a detector flagged his paper; a Nassau County judge ordered the finding expunged

Orion Newby, an Adelphi University first-year student with language and auditory processing disabilities, received a zero in November 2024 on a World Civilizations paper after the professor suspected it was AI-generated and the university relied in part on AI-detection software; he was ordered to attend a plagiarism workshop and his appeal was denied, leaving him one finding from suspension or expulsion. Newby — who had written the paper with 15-20 hours of tutor support through the university's own disability program — said the detectors flagged his citations, and two other detectors scored the paper as human. After the family sued, New York State Supreme Court Judge Randy Sue Marber in Nassau County ruled on 28 January 2026 that Adelphi's finding and its denial of his appeal were 'without valid basis and devoid of reason' and ordered his record expunged. The family spent six figures on legal costs.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 15/09/2026

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: 27/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.