Skip to main content

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

In this selection

Published cases
4
Countries with reported events
4
Located 4 of 4 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
Recorded for 4 of 4 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.

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

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.

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

4 of 507 published cases

19 Aug 2026FranceUnidentified AI tool

Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess

According to Gossement Avocats, which quotes the order, and the court's vice-president on France Inter, an order of 19 August 2026 (n°2508168) of the tribunal administratif de Rennes rejected a claimant’s application contesting a VAT reassessment and fined the claimant 500 euros for an abusive application. As quoted by Gossement Avocats, the order says the application had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed to assess them. The court also found it inadmissible because no prior complaint to the tax service was shown, and noted that it repeated a request with substantially the same object rejected in October 2025. The court’s vice-president cited the case on France Inter; commentators stress that AI use alone was not the basis for the fine.

Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources · Added 29/09/2026

15 Sept 2026 to 16 Sept 2026IndonesiaUnidentified image tool

East Jakarta: police confirm a grade-9 student at a state junior high school edited several female schoolmates' photographs with AI into indecent images that circulated as WhatsApp stickers; a social-media post said about 200 images were sold; the student was later beaten by schoolmates angry at the images (police statements differ on whether the depicted students or their friends did so) and both matters are under police investigation (Kompas, ANTARA, detik, VIVA, Media Indonesia, 23-24 September 2026)

On 23 September 2026 the spokesperson of the East Jakarta metropolitan police (Polres Metro Jakarta Timur) confirmed to reporters that a grade-9 student at a state junior high school in Pulogadung, East Jakarta, had edited photographs of several female schoolmates using artificial intelligence so that they appeared indecent, and that the edited images had been made into WhatsApp stickers; the police women-and-children protection unit is investigating. The case surfaced through a post on Threads which said about 200 edited photographs had been produced and sold to others; Kompas.com noted on 24 September that the sale allegation still rested only on that post, VIVA reported that police were still checking the claim that the images had been sold, and ANTARA reported on 23 September that police were still establishing the editing method, the recipients and the number of depicted students. As of 24 September the depicted students had not filed a report (detik and VIVA date the spokesperson's telephone remarks 'Kamis (22/9/2026)', a date that is internally inconsistent) and police appealed to them to do so. According to the parents' account relayed by police, on 15 and 16 September several people took the student who made the images to an empty house and then to a reservoir in Kayu Putih, punched him on the nose, ears and head, kicked his chest and stomach and threatened him with a bladed weapon; police attribute the beating to friends of the depicted students (ANTARA, detik, VIVA), while Kompas.com's 23 September report quotes the same spokesperson as saying the depicted students themselves beat him; he filed an assault report, which police are handling alongside the image case, and the school has held mediation with the students' parents. No student or school is named in the reports.

Core concern High reported severity Involving minors Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 8 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/09/2026

16 Sept 2026IndiaUnidentified video tool

Rajasthan: a social-media influencer's video of a Ganga dip at Haridwar was manipulated with AI into an objectionable reel that went viral; she says she is mentally disturbed and cannot leave her house, and filed a cyber-crime complaint on 16 September 2026

A Rajasthan social-media influencer visited Haridwar with her family in June 2026 and on 6 June uploaded to Instagram a short video, recorded by relatives, of herself taking a dip in the Ganga at Har Ki Pauri wearing a salwar suit. About two months later she found that the video had been manipulated with AI into an objectionable version showing the same movements with her face and body portrayed 'in a shameful manner'; the fake reel went viral in the week before 20 September and drew objectionable comments and re-sharing. In a public appeal she asked whoever uploaded it to remove it, saying it was a matter of her dignity, that she was mentally very disturbed and had reached a point where she could not step out of her house. She filed a complaint with the cyber-crime police on 16 September 2026; the investigating Rajasthan Police Service officer said they were trying to identify who created and circulated the video and to have it removed, and that identifying the accused would take time. Dainik Bhaskar's English edition reported the case on 20 September in a 'Sunday Big Story' that does not name her.

Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 21/09/2026

1 Aug 2025 to 9 Sept 2026United StatesChatGPT

New Mexico Supreme Court fines attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and removes him from a murder appeal over ChatGPT-fabricated testimony

Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.

Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources · 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: 05/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.