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 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

In this selection

Published cases
1
Countries with reported events
1
Located 1 of 1 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 1 of 1 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.

No known event years in this selection.

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

1 of 1075 published cases

Event date unknownBrazilUnidentified image tool

Brazilian court convicts man who admitted using AI to make a fake nude image of a co-worker from her Instagram photos and sharing it at work

A first-instance criminal court in São Paulo state convicted a man who worked at a health facility of distributing a nude image without consent (article 218-C of the Penal Code), according to a report by Diário de Justiça of the sentence released on 31 July 2026. The sentence records that a woman who worked at the same facility learned on 30 May 2025, in a call from the head nurse, that an intimate image attributed to her was circulating among staff, and recognised it as an AI montage made from clothed photos she had posted on Instagram; the defendant followed her account. In his testimony he admitted using artificial intelligence to produce a nude image of her, saying he meant to defend her against a remark about her, and denied sharing it with anyone but the head nurse, who confirmed receiving it from him. The judge held that article 218-C also covers artificially produced nudity and found that two people received the material. The court took into account her reported anxiety crises, psychological treatment and a workplace that had become hostile. The sentence of one year, one month and ten days was set in the open regime and replaced by community service and a payment of one minimum wage; no minimum compensation was fixed because she had filed a separate civil claim. Any appeal is not reported.

Core concern Medium reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 1 source · Added 01/11/2026

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: 01/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.