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 is wider: it also records consequential decisions and claims about people. 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
3
Countries with reported events
1
Located 2 of 3 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
0Core 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.

2cases 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

15 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.

3 2023
Reported severity MediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

3 of 560 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
29 Jun 2023United StatesTesla Autopilot (reported)

Washington state lawsuit alleges that a 2023 Tesla Model X stopped at a red light accelerated on its own in June 2023, injuring the driver and a minor passenger, and that Tesla's Autopilot technology was responsible

A product-liability complaint against Tesla, filed in King County Superior Court in Washington in June 2026 and removed to federal court on 23 September 2026, alleges that on 29 June 2023 a 2023 Model X that its driver had brought to a stop at a red light accelerated on its own with extreme force, went through the light into the intersection and struck a curb, bursting its tires. The complaint, as reported by AboutLawsuits on 1 October 2026, alleges that Tesla's Autopilot technology acted without command, failed to respond to the red light and prevented the driver from braking or steering to safety. It says the driver was injured and that a minor passenger was injured and has needed treatment. The plaintiffs allege that Tesla knew of the danger and overstated the technology's capabilities, and they seek compensatory and punitive damages. These are the plaintiffs' allegations. The complaint does not say in terms that Autopilot was engaged at the light, and no response from Tesla to the allegations was found in the sources read.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 05/10/2026

24 Jun 2023 to 10 Oct 2023United StatesFlock Safety license plate readers

Sedgwick, Kansas: the town's police chief ran his ex-girlfriend's plate through Flock license-plate readers 164 times and her new boyfriend's 64 times between June and October 2023 and followed them in his police vehicle, according to the state police-certification commission, which revoked his certification; he resigned in October 2023 and was not charged

According to an order of the Kansas Commission on Peace Officers' Standards and Training (KSCPOST) reported by the Wichita Eagle and KAKE in August 2024, the police chief of Sedgwick, Kansas, used the city's Flock Safety license-plate readers to check his ex-girlfriend's whereabouts 164 times between 24 June and 5 October 2023 and her new boyfriend's 64 times between 11 August and 10 October 2023, logging reasons such as missing child and drug investigation. The order says he also used his police vehicle to follow the two of them outside Sedgwick and on other occasions to keep tabs on them, and that he confronted the woman and told her to get back to town. He first said he was following them because of drug issues but admitted that jealousy was involved. He was placed on leave in October 2023 over unrelated misconduct allegations, admitted the Flock misuse during that investigation, and resigned on 20 October 2023. KSCPOST revoked his certification. The city administrator said the case did not appear sufficient for a criminal investigation, and no charges were filed. The city later cut back its Flock cameras.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 03/10/2026

1 Nov 2023 to 30 Nov 2024Event location unknowniCIMS AI screening tools (reported)

Harper v. Sirius XM: an applicant says AI screening tools rejected nearly all of about 150 job applications on the basis of race; the company denies using AI in hiring and a federal court dismissed the complaint without prejudice

Arshon Harper, a job applicant from Detroit, sued Sirius XM Radio in August 2025, alleging that AI screening tools in the iCIMS applicant tracking system rejected him because of his race. According to the complaint, as recited by the court, he applied for about 150 positions between November 2023 and November 2024 and all but one application was rejected before the interview stage. Sirius XM's EEOC position statement says it has never used iCIMS or any AI tool in hiring, and the company says it told the plaintiff's counsel the same; the court excluded that statement from its ruling. On 30 September 2026 a federal judge in Michigan dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The judge held that, even assuming AI was used, the complaint did not explain how it could have discriminated against him. The rejections and the AI connection are allegations, and the AI connection is disputed.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

AI involvement disputed · Causal attribution disputed · 2 sources · Added 02/10/2026

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: 05/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.