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
2
Located 3 of 3 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
16Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 3Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

3 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 3 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.

3cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 0cases 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

2 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 2025
Reported severity HighLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

3 of 1099 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Apr 2025NetherlandsChatGPT

Dutch court strikes out a couple's marriage record because the ChatGPT-assisted ceremony speech left out the legally required declaration

The Rechtbank Overijssel (Zwolle location) ordered on 5 January 2026 that a couple's marriage record of April 2025 be struck out of the Zwolle register of marriages, holding that no marriage had come into existence. The couple had asked an acquaintance to conduct the ceremony as a one-day special registrar, and because they wanted a light-hearted ceremony the officiant wrote the speech with the help of ChatGPT. The speech, which the court quotes, asked the partners to stand by each other and declared them 'a team', but it did not contain the declaration that Dutch civil law (article 1:67(1) of the Civil Code) requires spouses to make. The public prosecution service says it brought the case after a report from the municipality. The couple said the error was not their responsibility, that the municipal registrar present had not corrected it, and that losing their wedding date had a great emotional impact; the court refused their request to keep the original date.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/10/2026

Dec 2025 to Aug 2026United StatesPega Voice AI (reported)

U.S. Bank customers allege in a class action that Pega Voice AI transcribed and analysed their customer-service calls without consent

Four U.S. Bank account holders in California, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania allege in a federal class action filed on 2 October 2026 that Pegasystems' Pega Voice AI, which they say U.S. Bank uses in its contact centres, transcribed their customer-service calls in real time, analysed them with natural language processing and generated suggestions to the agent, without their prior consent. They say they gave account numbers, a date of birth and a home address on the calls, made between about December 2025 and August 2026. The claims are allegations; The CourtListener index of the docket, checked on 21 October 2026, listed the summons as returned executed on 16 October and no response from Pegasystems.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 21/10/2026

14 Jul 2025 to 24 Dec 2025United StatesClearview AI facial recognition (reported)

Tennessee grandmother Angela Lipps jailed five months on an AI facial-recognition misidentification; charges dismissed after bank records placed her 1,200 miles away

On 14 July 2025, U.S. Marshals arrested Angela Lipps, a 50-year-old Tennessee grandmother, at gunpoint at her home while she was babysitting four children, on a nationwide-extradition North Dakota warrant: West Fargo police's AI facial-recognition technology had tied her to bank-fraud surveillance of a woman using a fake U.S. Army military ID to withdraw tens of thousands of dollars. She fought extradition for about three months in a Tennessee jail, was booked into Cass County, North Dakota on 30 October 2025 on four counts of unauthorized use of personal identifying information and four counts of theft, and was released on 24 December after her bank records showed her more than 1,200 miles away in Tennessee; charges were dismissed without prejudice. Fargo's police chief acknowledged 'incorrect assumptions' linked to the AI identification; an email obtained by KVLY shows six Fargo detectives were notified of her arrest in July, nearly five months before the department says it knew she was in custody. She lost her home, her car and her dog; her attorneys are pursuing potential civil-rights claims, with no lawsuit filed as of 31 March 2026. On 15 September 2026 she filed a $10 million federal civil-rights suit in the District of North Dakota against the City of Fargo and the detective, alleging he relied on a flawed facial-recognition match and ignored exculpatory evidence.

Contextual tracker case High reported severity Lawsuit Filed

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 3 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: 04/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.