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 is wider: it also records consequential decisions and claims about people. 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
2
Countries with reported events
2
Located 2 of 2 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
Recorded for 2 of 2 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

1 case has no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 1 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.

0cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 1cases with a recorded regulatory response 1cases involving minors

Response counts currently use each case’s principal recorded outcome. Further proceedings may be described in its account.

When events happened

0 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.

1 20251 2026
Reported severity HighMedium
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 392 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
8 Oct 2025 to 2 Sept 2026IndiaUnidentified AI tool

Surat, India: a customs officer's ₹425 crore penalty order against a diamond trader relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that India's Supreme Court found 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'; the court set the order aside after the trader had lost in the Gujarat High Court

On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026

Feb 2026 to Apr 2026BrazilUnidentified video tool

São Paulo: a 37-year-old influencer used AI 'deepfake' tools to insert photographs of young women and adolescent girls of the Congregação Cristã do Brasil, taken from their social-media profiles without consent, into sexualised videos set inside churches; a 16-year-old and a 17-year-old filed police reports and the Civil Police investigate under the child-protection statute

A humorist and tyre repairer from Lençóis Paulista, São Paulo state, who posts on YouTube, Instagram, Facebook and TikTok as an impersonator of a television presenter, used AI tools to turn photographs that young women and adolescent girls of the Congregação Cristã do Brasil (CCB) had posted from inside churches into videos in which they appear dancing sensually beside women in short skirts, with the presenter inserted and the influencer commenting on their clothes. A 16-year-old congregant and her parents went to the 8ª Delegacia de Defesa da Mulher in São Paulo in February 2026; g1 made the case public on 22 April 2026 and Folha de S.Paulo confirmed the investigation. The girl told g1 the photograph had been taken in 2025 in front of the altar of a CCB church, that she was very shy, had not wanted to be exposed and was afraid the exposure would affect her social life, and that she had stopped taking photographs of herself; her family sued for moral damages. On 30 April 2026 the mother of a second girl, aged 17, registered a police report at the 4ª DDM Norte; g1 reported that the exposure had affected the girl psychologically. The São Paulo Civil Police investigate under article 241-C of the Estatuto da Criança e do Adolescente (simulating a sex or pornography scene with a minor by digital means) and for defamation of adult women in the videos; the inquiry was sent at the prosecutor's request to Lençóis Paulista, where the suspect lives, and the total number of people depicted was still being established. The influencer admitted making the videos with AI, said through his lawyer that they were satire and criticism of customs in a context of humour, said he did not know some of those depicted were minors, denied in his police statement linking the adolescent's image to sexualised content and said he had taken her for an adult, and posted an apology video (dated 5 April by g1's first report, which says it does not mention the deepfakes; described as posted after his police statement in g1's second report). The CCB said it had identified him, was taking internal measures and supports legal measures by the authorities. No later development was found on 2026-09-22.

Core concern High reported severity Involving minors Investigation Opened

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 14/06/2026

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: 30/09/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.