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
4
Countries with reported events
2
Located 2 of 4 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases
4Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 2Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

5 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 5 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.

1cases 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

5 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.

4 2025
Reported severity HighMediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 1050 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Feb 2025RussiaUnidentified video tool

Yaroslavl (Russia) court orders parents of pupil who used a neural network to turn his filmed teacher into a bare-chested man in a video to pay her damages

A court in Yaroslavl, Russia, ordered the parents of a seventh-grade pupil to pay a mathematics teacher 10,000 roubles each in compensation for moral harm, according to reports in March 2026 of the court's own announcement. The court's press service said that in February 2025 the boy filmed the teacher at work without her knowledge or consent, then used a neural network to generate a video from the footage in which she turns into a man with a bare athletic torso, and posted it in the class chat. The teacher told the court that afterwards she did not want to go back into the classroom, felt the pupils' sideways looks and that her authority had been damaged. The parents contested the claim, saying their son had only applied a trending effect and that the teacher disliked him; they did not dispute that he filmed her and made the video. The court found that the video harmed her honour, dignity and professional reputation.

Core concern Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 27/10/2026

21 Oct 2025 to 3 Apr 2026United StatesCoCounsel

Sixth Circuit removes court-appointed defence lawyer over CoCounsel-drafted briefs with false quotations, delaying an indigent defendant's appeal

In a published opinion of 3 April 2026, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit addressed the briefs a lawyer appointed under the Criminal Justice Act had filed for an indigent defendant appealing a sentencing enhancement in a drug-trafficking case. The court noticed that the principal brief's file name was 'CoCounsel Skill Results' and found three quotations that appear in no legal authority and misstatements of two precedents. The lawyer admitted that a staff member had used Westlaw's CoCounsel to create the first draft, that he repeated the process for the reply, and that the false quotations came from artificial intelligence he did not verify. The court denied him compensation for the appeal, referred the opinion for possible disciplinary proceedings and to the Kentucky Bar Association, and by separate order removed him, locked his briefs and ordered replacement counsel to file new ones, which it said further delayed resolution of the defendant's appeal. The court acknowledged his candour and his 40 years without discipline.

Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 19/10/2026

Sept 2025Event location unknownRevolut chatbot

Ombudsman finds Revolut misled a customer after its chatbot said his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed a refund; compensation raised to £100

In September 2025 a Revolut customer asked the bank, through its chatbot, to cash in loyalty points he had earned through its spare change feature. According to the Financial Ombudsman Service's final decision (DRN-6062372), the chatbot first said the 1,119 points would be refunded as £22.38; four days later it told him the 1,119 points had a cash value of £1,119, offered that as a one-time goodwill gesture and confirmed it had processed the refund. A few hours later the chatbot said that information was wrong; a live agent then said the £1,119 refund was being processed, and the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38. Revolut upheld his complaint and paid £50. The ombudsman found that Revolut gave him the wrong information on several occasions that day, held that he was never entitled to £1,119, and directed Revolut to pay a further £50. The customer said the lost expected refund caused financial pressure, and gave a GP letter describing anxiety and insomnia.

Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 15/10/2026

Apr 2025Event location unknownChatGPT

Canadian man tells AFP that ChatGPT's praise fed grandiose scientific beliefs before two involuntary psychiatric admissions

Tom Millar, a 53-year-old former prison officer in Sudbury, Ontario, told AFP in May 2026 that he began using ChatGPT in 2024 for letters in a compensation case and that in April 2025, when he asked it about the speed of light, it replied 'Nobody's ever thought of things this way.' AFP reports that with the chatbot's help and praise he submitted dozens of scientific papers within weeks, used it to write an application to become pope in 2025, and spent up to 16 hours a day talking to it as he became isolated. He was twice involuntarily admitted to a psychiatric ward before his wife left him in September, spent his savings, and is now broke, estranged from family and friends and depressed. He says he was 'brainwashed by a robot'. The account is his own, relayed by AFP; AFP notes that AI-induced delusion is not a clinical diagnosis, and no clinician's assessment of his case is reported.

Core concern High reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 01/07/2026

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: 31/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.