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
3Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 1Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

2 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 1 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.

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

5 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.

3 2026
Reported severity HighLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

3 of 404 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
10 Feb 2026United StatesClaude

S.D.N.Y.: Judge Rakoff rules that a fraud defendant's written exchanges with Claude about his defence, seized by the FBI, are protected by neither attorney-client privilege nor work product

Bradley Heppner, a corporate executive charged in the Southern District of New York with securities fraud, wire fraud and related offences, used Anthropic's Claude in 2025, after receiving a grand jury subpoena, to prepare reports outlining his defence strategy. His counsel had not directed him to do so. FBI agents seized about thirty-one documents memorialising those exchanges when they searched his home in connection with his arrest in November 2025. Heppner claimed privilege over them. On 10 February 2026 Judge Jed S. Rakoff granted from the bench the Government's motion for a ruling that the documents were not protected from Government inspection by either the attorney-client privilege or the work product doctrine, and a memorandum filed 17 February 2026 gave the reasons: Claude is not an attorney, and the communications were not confidential under Anthropic's privacy policy. The court described the question as one of first impression nationwide. Heppner was convicted in May 2026 of securities fraud, wire fraud and other charges; no inspected source says whether the Claude documents were used at trial.

Core concern Low reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources · Added 29/09/2026

Jul 2026South KoreaUnidentified image tool

Jeju: a middle-school student who secretly filmed teachers at his school and turned some of the footage into sexual deepfake composites was referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September 2026; police say the victims are teachers (more than one, number withheld) and no students at the school, the teachers' union questions whether the full scope of harm was confirmed, and the union says the victim teachers have been in treatment for two months while teaching daily, were questioned without a lawyer and wrote the criminal complaint themselves

Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that police found the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun that there are more victim teachers than the one first reported but declined to give a number because the teachers are still teaching at the school and disclosure could cause secondary harm; that some suggestive composites were found and material causing shame was included in the charges; and that, contrary to earlier suggestions, no student at the school was a victim. The Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full extent of the harm had been established, saying the victim teachers had themselves seen footage involving several students yet no compulsory seizure was made; police say the voluntary submission and forensic examination secured the necessary evidence. According to the union, two months after the case came to light the victim teachers are receiving hospital treatment and counselling while going to school every day; on 14 September they gave police victim statements without a lawyer and on 17 September attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee without support from the education office or the school safety mutual-aid association; they wrote and filed the criminal complaint themselves; substitute teachers are hard to find so they have used only three or four of 16 days of special leave; and the mutual-aid association proposes 3.3 million won in legal fees for all victim teachers together, payable after the case ends. The victim teachers requested meetings with the superintendent on 1 and 3 September without success, and a third written request was sent to the superintendent's office on 21 September; the union is running a petition until 2 October for severe punishment and support. Police said they had told the education office that the teachers need support such as treatment costs, rest and sick leave.

Core concern High reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 23/09/2026

Jan 2026Event location unknownGrok

Jess Asato’s solicitors report non-consensual Grok imagery and a High Court claim

Jess Asato’s solicitors report that Grok was used to make non-consensual sexualized images of her in January 2026. They announced a High Court claim against xAI on 3 June. These are the claimant’s representatives’ accounts; liability has not been established by the evidence reviewed here.

Core concern High reported severity Lawsuit Filed

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · 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.