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
7
Countries with reported events
3
Located 5 of 7 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
4
Recorded for 7 of 7 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

7 of 707 published cases

5 Feb 2026 to 9 Oct 2026United StatesvLex, Paxton AI and NotebookLM (reported)

New York federal court enters default judgment against a defendant and orders its lawyer to pay $38,877 after false citations it found AI produced

In a federal trademark suit in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York, the court on 5 February 2026 struck a company defendant's motion papers and entered default judgment against it as a sanction on its lawyer, after his filings repeatedly cited nonexistent cases and misattributed quotations. The lawyer said he had found and cite-checked cases with AI tools (vLex and Paxton AI) and used NotebookLM to review a later submission; the court rejected his explanations and found he acted in bad faith. On 9 October 2026 the court described the citations as produced by generative AI and ordered the lawyer to pay $38,877.59 in fees and costs to the firm of a co-defendant's former lawyer, who had reported the false citations to the court.

Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 16/10/2026

24 Apr 2026United StatesUnidentified AI research tool

Alabama Supreme Court dismisses two siblings' family-trust appeal as a sanction after their lawyer admits using AI that produced fake citations

On 24 April 2026 the Supreme Court of Alabama dismissed an appeal by two siblings in a family dispute over living trusts because their lawyer, W. Perry Hall, had filed briefs in which most of the legal authorities were misquoted or did not exist. The court said they appeared to be AI hallucinations, and at a show-cause hearing in February 2026 Hall admitted that many authorities did not exist and that he had improperly used AI to obtain them. The court ordered Hall to pay the opposing party's fees and costs of $17,200 and double appeal costs, barred him from filing in the court without a co-signing attorney and referred him to the Alabama State Bar. It said the dismissal was imposed as a sanction because of the particularly egregious facts. One justice, concurring in part and dissenting in part, objected to dismissing the appeal as a sanction for the lawyer's conduct but would have affirmed the judgment against the clients on the merits.

Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 1 source · Added 14/10/2026

Sept 2026Event location unknownUnidentified voice-cloning tool

Singer Samuel Sarmiento, formerly of Banda Los Recoditos, warns followers that fake videos using his voice cloned with AI are asking for money for his mother's funeral, hours after he announced her death in September 2026

Samuel Sarmiento, a former lead singer of Banda Los Recoditos, announced his mother's death on social media in late September 2026. Hours later he posted a video on his official Instagram account warning that people were circulating fake videos using his voice, cloned with AI, in which he appeared to ask for money to cover her funeral costs. 'No se vale que haya gente tan ruin que ande pidiendo dinero con mi voz, con IA, para el sepelio de mi madre', he said, adding that he was not asking anyone for money. La Razón, Récord, La Mejor and El Diario de Sonora relayed his video on 30 September 2026. No report says whether anyone paid, and no police complaint is reported.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 01/10/2026

26 Feb 2026Event location unknownClaude Code

DataTalks.Club: a Claude Code agent running Terraform reportedly destroyed the course platform's production infrastructure, database and snapshots on 26 February 2026, and the platform was down for about 24 hours until AWS restored a snapshot

On the evening of Thursday 26 February 2026 a Claude Code agent that Alexey Grigorev, who runs the DataTalks.Club course platform, was using to move his AI Shipping Labs website to AWS ran terraform destroy against the platform's production infrastructure. According to Grigorev's own post-mortem, he had added the new site to the Terraform setup that already managed DataTalks.Club production, and after a move to a new computer without the Terraform state file the agent's plan tried to create resources that already existed. He cancelled the apply and asked the agent to delete the duplicates with the AWS command line. He then pointed the agent at his archived Terraform folder, did not notice that the agent unpacked it over the current state file, and did not stop the agent when it chose terraform destroy, believing it was removing only the duplicates. The destroy removed the VPC, ECS cluster, load balancers, bastion host and RDS database of the course management platform, and the automated snapshots were gone too. The platform, which stored 2.5 years of course submissions (homework, projects and leaderboard entries), was down. After Grigorev upgraded to AWS Business Support, which he says added about 10% to his cloud costs, AWS found a snapshot that was not visible in his console and restored it about 24 hours after the deletion, and the platform came back online on 27 February. Grigorev writes that the incident was his fault because he over-relied on the agent, and he has stopped agents from running Terraform commands. Tom's Hardware rewrites his account.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026

19 Jul 2026IndiaClaude Code

Heritage project reports loss of inscription records after a Claude Code command

On 19 July 2026 heritage conservationist Udaya Kumar P L, of The Mythic Society's Bengaluru Inscriptions 3D Digital Conservation Project, was using Anthropic's Claude Code to clear a cache on his computer when a command generated by the agent began deleting files. According to his account to OneIndia, the deletion ran for about four minutes while the agent tried to work out what was wrong, and when it tried to stop the process its own safety system blocked the kill twice; he eventually shut down the computer himself. Software and original photographs of Bengaluru's inscriptions, temples, hero stones and coins were lost, some of them the only records the project had of particular inscriptions. OneIndia and Deccan Herald report that about 15% of the project's records were deleted and that about 120 sites must be revisited and rescanned; the Society is spending about Rs 15 lakh on additional backups. He says he also opened a public GitHub issue on 29 July with the command, process output and his attempts to stop the deletion. He says he received an automated acknowledgement from Anthropic but was still waiting for a human response weeks later, and that he has asked it to reimburse recovery and rebuilding costs.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026

2 Jun 2026PortugalGemini (reported)

Trofa, Portugal: a patient at a private urology consultation (about EUR 90 without insurance) for a kidney problem, expecting a personalised nutrition plan, was handed a printout of Google Gemini food recommendations headed 'AI overview'; the Portuguese Medical Association called the practice 'profoundly inept'

According to Correio da Manhã, during a urology consultation at the Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa on 2 June 2026, a patient being followed for a kidney problem expected a personalised nutrition plan but received a printed sheet of food recommendations headed 'vista geral de IA' ('AI overview'), generated by Google's Gemini. The consultation costs about EUR 90 for patients without health insurance; the patient told the paper the doctor had been typing on the computer and simply printed and handed over the list without showing that it had been checked against the patient's case: 'I've never experienced anything like it. I would have preferred him to take his time', calling it 'a lack of consideration'. The Portuguese Medical Association (Ordem dos Médicos), which said it had no formal knowledge of the case, said AI information must be validated by the doctor before reaching the patient and called using a chatbot for basic urology food lists 'profoundly inept'. Trofa Saúde did not respond to the paper over three weeks.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026

19 May 2026United StatesUnidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)

Hudsonville (Grand Rapids area), Michigan: a couple wired US$66,026.92 to scammers after a spoofed email and a phone call in what sounded like their loan officer's voice, which they and a fraud-prevention firm attribute to AI voice cloning

A married couple in their sixties buying a US$460,000 condo in Hudsonville, near Grand Rapids, Michigan, received an email on 19 May 2026, days before closing, telling them to wire US$66,026.92 for the down payment and closing costs within 24 hours. The email listed a phone number differing from their loan officer's by two digits, and the husband then received a call confirming the instructions in a voice that sounded just like the loan officer. The couple borrowed from family and other sources and wired the money. The day before closing their real loan officer sent the actual statement; the closing was cancelled hours before signing and the money was gone. The husband now believes the call came from a spoofed number using AI-assisted voice cloning; Tyler Adams of CertifID, which is working with the couple and federal officials, said someone's email in the transaction was probably compromised and that the scammers likely cloned the loan officer's voice from social-media clips. The sender's address had two extra letters ('UnitedsMortgages' instead of 'UnitedMortgage'). Neither the lender nor the loan officer is accused of complicity. The couple later completed the purchase in early June from their mutual fund, reported the loss to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, and describe lasting apprehension and have discussed delaying retirement. CNN reported the case on 15 September 2026; the account the money went to has since closed.

Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement suspected · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 20/09/2026

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: 16/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.