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
4
Countries with reported events
4
Located 4 of 4 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
4
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 MediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 1101 published cases

Event date unknownEstoniaUnidentified AI web service

Estonia's data protection inspectorate says a bank employee uploaded staff employment contracts to an AI service whose shared account let colleagues view them

In its overview of personal-data breach notifications for the third quarter of 2026, published on 8 October 2026, Estonia's Data Protection Inspectorate (AKI) listed a case in which a bank employee uploaded employment contracts to a widely used AI web service, making them available to other employees who used the same AI account. Answering questions from the technology outlet Geenius, AKI said the employment contracts of a few individual employees had been entered into the AI system and became accessible to other employees using the same account; Geenius reports that those colleagues could view and download them. According to the report, the bank informed the people affected and blocked its employees from using that AI system. AKI did not name the bank, the AI service or further circumstances.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 31/10/2026

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

8 Oct 2026IsraelUnidentified AI tool

Israeli court strikes a defendant's expert report it found rested on AI-hallucinated case law and orders her to pay the banks' costs

On 8 October 2026 the Magistrates' Court in Nof HaGalil-Nazareth, Israel, struck from the file a banking expert's opinion that a defendant in a civil negligence suit had filed, finding that the heart of the opinion and its annexes rested on clear 'AI hallucinations': a Supreme Court ruling the court could not locate, a book it could not find and statutory sections quoted with text the statute does not contain. The court also refused the defendant's request to amend her third-party notice against two banks, partly because the amendment relied on the struck opinion, and ordered her to pay costs of 2,500 shekels to each bank. No AI tool is named, and the decision records no response from the expert.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 16/10/2026

Event date unknownBrazilUnidentified facial recognition system

Police in Espírito Santo say a man photographed an 81-year-old's face, passed his bank app's facial recognition on his own phone and took R$6,080; arrested

Folha Vitória reported on 29 September 2026, citing the Espírito Santo Civil Police, that a 39-year-old man was arrested on 28 September on a preventive warrant after an inquiry into qualified theft by electronic fraud against an 81-year-old man in the north-west of the state. According to the police, the suspect, who worked as a security guard at a dance venue, invited the man to his home on the pretext of making a free-entry card, kept his bank card, obtained personal data and photographed his face. The police say he used the images to get past the facial recognition of the banking app and enable access to the account on his own phone, then reset security passwords, redeemed investments and made Pix transfers without the victim's knowledge, diverting R$6,080. The victim is described as illiterate. The police say the suspect had prior records and was serving a sentence under a progressive regime. Folha do ES and Tribuna Norte Leste carried the same police account but could not be read.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 07/10/2026

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