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
4
Countries with reported events
2
Located 2 of 4 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 2 of 4 cases
8Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 9Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

4 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 2 not yet reviewed and 2 reviewed as unknown. Show all 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.

2cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 0cases 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

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 20233 2025
Reported severity CriticalHighMediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 452 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
1 Nov 2023 to 30 Nov 2024Event location unknowniCIMS AI screening tools (reported)

Harper v. Sirius XM: an applicant says AI screening tools rejected nearly all of about 150 job applications on the basis of race; the company denies using AI in hiring and a federal court dismissed the complaint without prejudice

Arshon Harper, a job applicant from Detroit, sued Sirius XM Radio in August 2025, alleging that AI screening tools in the iCIMS applicant tracking system rejected him because of his race. According to the complaint, as recited by the court, he applied for about 150 positions between November 2023 and November 2024 and all but one application was rejected before the interview stage. Sirius XM's EEOC position statement says it has never used iCIMS or any AI tool in hiring, and the company says it told the plaintiff's counsel the same; the court excluded that statement from its ruling. On 30 September 2026 a federal judge in Michigan dismissed the complaint without prejudice. The judge held that, even assuming AI was used, the complaint did not explain how it could have discriminated against him. The rejections and the AI connection are allegations, and the AI connection is disputed.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

AI involvement disputed · Causal attribution disputed · 2 sources · Added 02/10/2026

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

13 Jul 2025Event location unknownChatGPT

Winters v. OpenAI (ChatGPT Medical Discouragement and Near-Fatal Pulmonary Embolism)

Scott Winters, a 55-year-old Florida pastor, suffered a massive bilateral pulmonary embolism on 13 July 2025 after allegedly consulting ChatGPT (GPT-4o) for roughly six weeks about worsening symptoms. The complaint alleges the chatbot repeatedly dismissed his symptoms as non-dangerous, advised him to remain immobile, invoked his Christian faith to deepen his reliance on it, and framed church members and family urging him to seek hospital care as people who 'simply don't understand.' He survived after ICU admission but lost his job, ministry and home. A lawsuit was filed 22 July 2026 in San Francisco County Superior Court.

AI relation under review Critical reported severity Lawsuit Filed

Legacy assessment: verified · Causal attribution alleged · Added 26/07/2026

1 Jun 2025PolandChatGPT

Viktoria Poland - ChatGPT Suicide Encouragement

Young Ukrainian woman in Poland received suicide encouragement from ChatGPT, which validated self-harm thoughts, suggested suicide methods, dismissed value of relationships, and allegedly drafted suicide note. OpenAI acknowledged 'violation of safety standards.' Non-fatal due to intervention.

AI relation under review High reported severity Internal Action

Legacy assessment: verified · Causal attribution supported · Added 13/01/2026

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: 02/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.