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 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

In this selection

Published cases
4
Countries with reported events
1
Located 2 of 4 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases

2 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 2 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.

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.

No known event years in this selection.

More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 392 published cases

Event date unknownUnited KingdomUnidentified chatbot

Lewes Crown Court, England: a rape trial was stayed part-way through and the jury discharged after documents on the complainant's phone, which the complainant said came from putting material into AI to prepare for court, were treated as witness coaching; the Court of Appeal reversed the stay on 4 June 2026 and ordered a retrial

During a rape trial at Lewes Crown Court, a download of the complainant's phone revealed two documents containing a summary of the complainant's recollection of the night in question and 24 questions in the form of a cross-examination, with suggested answers. Asked about them, the complainant said: 'I had put stuff into AI to help me prepare myself for the court'. The trial judge (a Recorder) held that this was witness coaching, found that the defendant could not have a fair trial and stayed the proceedings as an abuse of process; the jury was discharged when the prosecution gave notice of appeal. On 4 June 2026 the Court of Appeal (R v FGD [2026] EWCA Crim 918) reversed the stay, holding that the trial process could deal with any prejudice, and directed a retrial at the earliest opportunity because the allegations were 'now of some age'. The defence did not accept that the documents were AI-generated; the appeal proceeded on that basis. The court warned that witnesses should be firmly discouraged from using AI to prepare their evidence and that, for complainants in sexual-offence cases, doing so may expose their online activity to wider and more intrusive investigation.

Core concern Medium reported severity Media Coverage

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

Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified video tool

Argentina: actor Jorge Martínez, 79, loses the savings in his four bank accounts to an investment platform promoted with AI-made fake videos of Lionel Messi and Javier Milei, then loses 1,400 dollars to a separate fake-Temu call

Journalist Nahuel Saa (La Criti) reported in September 2026 that the 79-year-old telenovela actor Jorge Martínez, who was saving a sum in dollars, had fallen for two consecutive online scams. In the first, he became interested in a supposed investment platform that used fake videos of Lionel Messi and Javier Milei created with artificial intelligence, transferred money, and received calls for about two weeks showing growing interest. When the callers asked where to send 19,300 pesos of 'interest', he gave his bank account, and that afternoon his four accounts had been emptied. He noted that the callers' numbers were from Spain and England. Soon after, callers posing as Temu promised him a 500,000-peso loyalty bonus, asked for his account, and took the 1,400 dollars he had deposited; no AI element is reported in that second scam.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Media Coverage

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

Event date unknownEvent location unknownGemini note-taking in Google Meet

First-person forum account: an agency employee in England says Gemini note-taking in Google Meet kept transcribing two prospective clients after the agency's boss left the call, and that the boss passed their private post-meeting discussion to staff to shape a follow-up pitch

In a public post to r/LegalAdviceUK on 28 September 2026, an employee of a marketing agency in England writes that their boss pitched a prospective client and the client's business partner on a Google Meet call with Gemini note-taking switched on. After the boss said goodbye and left, the two business partners stayed on the call to discuss the proposal and the other agencies they were considering, and Gemini kept taking notes. The boss then sent the employee the notes and transcript, which named a competing agency and included 'personal details of who they spoke to specifically on the call', and asked for a follow-up deck built on what the partners liked and disliked. The poster believes the partners did not know they were still being transcribed. Google's help page says Meet tells all participants when notes are being taken; whether the partners noticed is not known. The account is uncorroborated.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026

Event date unknownUnited KingdomUnidentified video tool

Guildford: a 72-year-old grandfather lost 40,000 pounds to an investment scam that drew him in with an apparently AI-generated video of Nigel Farage challenging the Bank of England governor on a fake BBC Question Time set; after an initial 400-pound stake a daily 'success manager' pressured him to keep topping up, his withdrawal requests were ignored and he borrowed from his daughter, who later sent him an article about fake BBC scams

Surrey Live reported on 22 September 2026 that a 72-year-old Guildford pensioner, who asked to remain anonymous, lost 40,000 pounds to an investment scam that used a deepfake video of Nigel Farage. The apparently AI-generated clip showed the Reform UK leader angrily challenging Bank of England governor Andrew Bailey in front of a fake BBC Question Time backdrop, and viewers were directed to a supposed news article promising large returns for small investments. Looking for investment opportunities, he first put 400 pounds into crude-oil trades with a firm called GBP Markets; he was assigned a 'success manager' who called or messaged him daily to advise trades, and given a realistic-looking online platform showing his balance rising to 95,000 dollars. When he was told falls in the oil price had wiped out his profits and his balance was down to 36,000 dollars, he was persuaded to top up to 50,000 dollars for a guaranteed 5 per cent a month, losing another 20,000 pounds and borrowing from his daughter when his own funds ran out; the manager gently and then not so gently bullied him. Two requests to withdraw money were ignored. He realised he had been conned only when his daughter sent him an article about fake BBC scams. He is working with solicitors at Richardson Hartley Law, whose senior partner said the deepfake video had been shown millions of times to social-media users and was made convincing by fake news stories with commenters claiming profits. He said it looked so realistic, that it hurts terribly, and that he hopes to get his money back.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 23/09/2026

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