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
—
Located 0 of 1 cases · 1 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.

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

1 of 1096 published cases

2024Event location unknownGemini (reported)

Brazilian court orders Google to pay R$20,000 after its AI falsely named a businessman as owner of a betting site, leaving him blamed for its scams

A civil court in Niterói, Rio de Janeiro state, ordered Google Brasil to pay a businessman R$20,000 in moral damages in a sentence dated 12 May 2025. The judge found it undisputed that the company's artificial intelligence had pointed to him in searches as the owner of a gambling platform called 7 Games, with which he had no connection, as the company register showed. The court found that the false information damaged his reputation: he was being held responsible for scams on the betting platform and received threats by email from its customers. The court had earlier granted an injunction to remove the association, and the sentence confirmed it. Google argued that it does not host the material shown in its results and only organises pages available on the web; the judge held Google responsible because the information came from its own platform rather than from a linked page. Conjur, a legal-news site, identifies the tool as Gemini and reports that the association began after an interview in which he recommended seven games; the sentence names no product. Whether Google appealed is not reported.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 02/11/2026

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: 02/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.