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
3
Countries with reported events
3
Located 3 of 3 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
2Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

1 case has no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 1 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.

0cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 2cases 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

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.

No known event years in this selection.

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

3 of 1101 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownLebanonUnidentified video tool

Lebanon police say pages sold remedies using AI-generated videos falsely showing a complainant endorsing them; arrests and raids followed

In a statement published on 28 October 2026, Lebanon's Internal Security Forces (ISF) said their Cybercrime and Intellectual Property Bureau had received a complaint, filed with the competent judiciary, against Facebook and TikTok pages that promoted various medicines and preparations using videos generated by artificial intelligence, in which the complainant appeared in a way that falsely suggested the complainant was promoting the products. The products were said to treat stomach and joint pain, prostate and heart problems, blood sugar and blood pressure, and included sexual enhancers and slimming preparations. A patrol caught two people in the act of handing dozens of orders to a delivery company, with 13,602 US dollars they said came from daily sales; raids in Beirut and other areas led to further arrests and the seizure of thousands of containers. The ISF said some mixtures did not match the ingredients on the labels, that paper records of thousands of orders indicated a large number of buyers, and that the Ministry of Public Health was testing the seized products. The ISF did not say how it established that the videos were AI-generated, and the complainant is not named.

Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/10/2026

Event date unknownUnited KingdomUnidentified chatbot

Derbyshire Police remove a detective from frontline duties and open a criminal investigation over alleged use of AI to create evidential material

Derbyshire Police said in June 2026 that it had launched a criminal investigation into an allegation of perverting the course of justice after the alleged use of AI systems by an officer to create evidential material in a number of cases, and that the officer had been removed from frontline duties; no arrests had been made. The Crown Prosecution Service said it was engaging with defence teams and the courts in appropriate cases. Scottish Legal News, citing sources familiar with the matter, reported that the detective allegedly used an AI chatbot to prepare documents including victim impact statements and case summaries for prosecutors. It also reported that a number of rape convictions were being reviewed. In October 2026 the head of the Independent Office for Police Conduct referred to the case when warning that AI mistakes could lead to a mistrial. The officer is not named, the AI system is not identified, and the allegations have not been tested.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 14/10/2026

Event date unknownHong Kong SAR ChinaUnidentified image and video tool

Hong Kong police report deepfake romance-investment fraud targeting people across Asia

Hong Kong police described a syndicate that used deepfake romantic personas to induce investments by people in Taiwan, Singapore and Malaysia. SCMP reported alleged criminal proceeds exceeding HK$34 million and a January 2025 operation arresting thirty-one suspects. An official police budget reply separately identifies that January operation and the amount involved. The Standard reported on 10 February 2026 that police had charged nine more suspects, bringing the number prosecuted to 14, all for conspiracy to defraud and four also for dealing with property known or believed to represent proceeds of an indictable offence. No verdict or sentence is reported in the sources read. The first scam date, number of affected people and individual loss allocations are unknown. A different October 2024 operation involving twenty-seven arrests is kept separate.

Core concern Medium reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 30/09/2026

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: 11/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.