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
1
Countries with reported events
—
Located 0 of 1 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 1 of 1 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

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

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

1 of 917 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
2025Event location unknownChatGPT

Australia's Fair Work Commission refuses a former employee more time for a claim he brought on ChatGPT's advice, calling the proceedings hopeless

A former employee who had resigned in writing on 19 October 2022 applied to Australia's Fair Work Commission almost two and a half years later to have a general protections dismissal dispute dealt with, and asked for an extension of time for a delay of 919 days. In [2025] FWC 2289 (8 August 2025) the Deputy President recorded that he confirmed using ChatGPT to prepare the application, that the application included ChatGPT advice saying his former employer had contravened various obligations and suggesting he commence legal actions including this one, and that the Commission could see no basis for that advice. ChatGPT had also advised him to consult a lawyer or union representative, which he did not do. The Commission said he simply followed ChatGPT's suggestion, called the proceedings hopeless, found that his reliance on ChatGPT to bring an apparently unmeritorious claim told against an extension, announced its refusal at a conference on 6 August 2025 and dismissed the application.

Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/10/2026

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: 25/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.