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
3
Countries with reported events
2
Located 2 of 3 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 1Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

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

1 20171 2026
Reported severity High
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

3 of 392 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Aug 2017United StatesDraftKings and FanDuel apps

Pennsylvania: two men sued DraftKings (one also FanDuel) alleging that AI-driven personalization, targeted promotions and VIP handling fostered gambling addiction; they plead net losses of about US$81,000 and US$58,000, debt, family breakdown, depression and, in one case, suicidal ideation

Christopher Evans (Philadelphia; complaint filed 24 July 2026 in the Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas) and Michael Santos (Coatesville, Chester County; complaint filed 29 July 2026 in the Chester County Court of Common Pleas) sued DraftKings and its Pennsylvania affiliate; Santos also sued FanDuel and its parents. Both product-liability complaints, filed by the same law firm, allege that the defendants' sports-betting, daily-fantasy and casino apps are designed to addict, and that the companies 'utilize the combination of advanced technology and artificial intelligence paired with the tracking of personalized user data to intentionally addict users', operating 'AI-powered engagement platforms' (pleaded on information and belief) and, per DraftKings' 10-K as quoted, 'data science and machine learning' recommendation engines. Evans pleads that since about August 2017 he wagered over US$2.1 million with net losses of about US$81,000, received constant targeted promotions and personalised push notifications and a VIP account manager, developed depression and anxiety and was formally diagnosed with depression in 2020, stopped going outside, fell into debt, had his vehicle repossessed and separated from his wife. Santos pleads over US$1.164 million wagered on DraftKings with net losses of about US$58,000 plus small FanDuel losses, targeted advertising and a VIP manager who kept offering bonus bets after he said he wanted to stop, maxed-out credit cards, the forced sale of his house, diagnoses of depression and anxiety, suicidal ideation, and self-exclusion with the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board in 2023. Both cases were removed to the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania on 16 September 2026 (2:26-cv-07168 and 2:26-cv-07176). The allegations are untested.

Contextual tracker case High reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources · Added 20/09/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified chatbot

Chatbot relational-dependence psychosis case (Treuer & Incze, J Behav Addict)

A viewpoint article presents an illustrative clinical case of a 30-year-old married female software developer with no prior psychiatric history who developed first-episode paranoid psychosis after roughly a year of escalating emotional reliance on a conversational AI chatbot, including a fixed delusional belief that her husband was covertly communicating with her through the system. Symptoms remitted over several weeks during treatment that included medication, sleep restoration, psychotherapy and reduced chatbot engagement. The authors state that causality cannot be established.

AI relation under review High reported severity Media Coverage

Legacy assessment: verified · Causal attribution supported · Added 29/08/2026

Mar 2026IndiaUnidentified image and video tool

Indore: a first-year college student complained in May 2026 that a man she met at her sister's wedding edited her photographs with AI into objectionable images after she refused to marry him, blackmailed her with them and, after approaching her fiancé (the reports differ on how), caused her engagement to be broken off; she had been contemplating suicide before confiding in her family (Navbharat Times, Amar Ujala, Patrika, 12-13 May 2026)

Indore police registered an FIR at Banganga police station on a first-year college student's complaint reported on 12 and 13 May 2026. She said she had met the accused, a young man from the Indore area, at her sister's wedding in 2024, where he took some photographs of her; he later pressed her to marry him and, when she refused, threatened to edit her photographs with AI into objectionable (Navbharat Times, Amar Ujala) or obscene (Patrika) images and post them online. Navbharat Times reports that he edited the pictures with AI, blackmailed her with them and, after her family arranged her engagement elsewhere, reached her fiancé and showed him the edited pictures, after which the families quarrelled and the engagement was broken; Patrika says he went to the fiancé's home and intimidated him into breaking the match; Amar Ujala says he also threatened to kill her and her family and sent edited pictures when her family tried to reason with him, and that when her engagement took place about two months earlier he went to her house and made false allegations about her character in front of the prospective fiancé, after which the engagement broke. She went into severe mental distress and, according to Amar Ujala, had resolved to take a suicidal step before telling her family, who took her to the police. The FIR was registered under the IT Act and sections on criminal intimidation and defamation; police were searching for the accused.

Core concern High reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 15/06/2026

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.