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
2
Countries with reported events
1
Located 1 of 2 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 2 of 2 cases
5Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 9Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

2 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 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.

1cases 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

1 case 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.

2 2026
Reported severity Medium
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 1101 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
11 Mar 2026Event location unknownUnidentified OpenAI model (reported)

Employment tribunal refuses interim relief to manager who says he was fired for raising concerns about customer data sent to OpenAI; employer cites his AI use

A Head of Customer Service Platform at Apertum Online Ltd, a consumer internet company whose customer-service system passed customer request forms to a large language model, was dismissed on 11 March 2026 during his probation, two months after starting. According to an employment tribunal decision of 23 April 2026, he had told his manager in February that customers' personal data was being sent to OpenAI within support tickets and set out his concerns in a document; the chief technical officer called the document pure AI slop in a chat and said he would fire him. The employer says it dismissed him for underperformance, citing his reliance on AI to generate documents; he says he was dismissed for his disclosures. The judge refused interim relief, finding he had not shown a pretty good chance of success on the reason for dismissal while noting a significant coincidence in timing. No findings of fact were made, and the claim awaits a final hearing.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 1 source · Added 22/10/2026

16 Apr 2026KenyaMeta AI (reported)

Kenya: Sama lays off more than 1,000 workers after Meta ends its AI data-annotation contract; a workers' group alleges a link to staff speaking out

On 16 April 2026 Sama, an outsourcing company with operations in Nairobi that did AI data-annotation work for Meta, announced that Meta had given formal notice ending its contract and that a redundancy process would affect more than 1,000 employees. Sama put the figure at 1,108 workers. The Guardian reported that the workers were abruptly sacked, and the Oversight Lab said they had six days' notice. The decision came less than two months after the SvD and GP investigation in which Sama annotators said they had seen intimate footage from users of Meta's AI glasses. Meta said it paused its work with Sama the month before while it looked into those claims and then decided to end the work because Sama does not meet its standards. Sama says it was never notified of any failure to meet those standards. A Kenyan workers' organisation alleges Meta's decision was caused by staff speaking out, which Meta had not addressed when the BBC reported it on 30 April 2026. Employees told SvD that Sama tightened security and tried to identify who had spoken to journalists, which Sama denies. TechPolicy.Press reports that one worker, with Sama for over a decade, now faces starting from scratch. The workers are described by role and are not named.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity

AI involvement disputed · Causal attribution disputed · 5 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026

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