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
2
Located 3 of 4 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
4
Recorded for 4 of 4 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.

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

4 of 404 published cases

Jul 2026IndiaUnidentified image tool

Delhi: a 25-year-old content creator says her photograph was morphed with AI face-swapping tools onto a vulgar image beside the Prime Minister, printed on banners paraded at a Cockroach Janta Party protest at Jantar Mantar and circulated online; FIR registered 24 September 2026, Delhi High Court orders Meta takedown within 24 hours and police protection on 25 September

A 25-year-old content creator from Delhi complained to the police that organisers and demonstrators at a Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest at Jantar Mantar had taken her personal photograph without consent, used AI face-swapping tools to morph her face onto a vulgar, compromising image alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi, printed the image on banners waved before crowds with sexually suggestive slogans, and circulated videos of the banners on Instagram and other platforms; her later High Court petition adds that the images were uploaded to pornographic websites and that she has received rape, acid-attack and death threats. The Delhi Police registered an FIR against unknown persons at the New Delhi cyber police station on 24 September 2026 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. On 25 September Justice Girish Kathpalia of the Delhi High Court directed Meta Platforms to remove the objectionable content within 24 hours, ordered the Delhi Police to give the petitioner complete protection and file a status report within a week, issued notice to the four CJP functionaries named in her plea, ordered the registry to redact the impugned web links from the petition (and, per PTI, her name), and listed the matter for 14 October 2026 (PTI, Ommcom News). The police told the court the FIR had been registered the previous day and that action would be taken expeditiously; no accused had been named or arrested at that stage. The petition says the protest took place in July 2026 and that she approached the police on 23 September; the CJP had not commented at the time of the first report.

Core concern High reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 9 sources, 7 underlying accounts · Added 26/09/2026

19 Mar 2024 to 19 Sept 2026NetherlandsUnidentified video tool

Netherlands: the Public Prosecution Service will prosecute a 74-year-old man from Noord-Holland for making deepfake sex videos of dozens of Dutch public figures, including presenters, politicians and a member of the royal family (images of about sixty people were found on his devices), after the 2024 revelations about the MrDeepFakes platform

In March 2024 the newspaper AD revealed that a large number of Dutch women in public life, including artists, television presenters, Olympic athletes, current and former ministers, mayors and members of the royal family, appeared in manipulated pornographic videos on an online platform with 13 million monthly visitors, later identified as MrDeepFakes. Dozens of women filed police complaints and several spoke publicly: one presenter said she was preparing a complaint, a party leader said the video felt like 'digital rape', another presenter said she would file a complaint 'because tomorrow it could happen to young girls of sixteen', a presenter-entrepreneur did so 'to prevent new, young victims', and a member of parliament, told of a video by the House security service, went public rather than 'keep it small'. On 19 and 20 September 2026 AD, and the Public Prosecution Service (OM) confirming to NOS, reported that after more than a year of investigation the OM will prosecute a 74-year-old man from Noord-Holland, who is not in custody, for making the videos (Hart van Nederland, citing AD, says he is suspected of making and distributing them); images of about sixty well-known Dutch people and politicians were found on his devices, AD reported that he had been the platform's most active Dutch user, and he faces up to two years' imprisonment. The platform's Canadian operator, who removed material at the OM's request and blocked Dutch IP addresses before the site went offline, will not be prosecuted. One of the presenters reported to be among the depicted told AD she was relieved the case would go to court, having experienced the impact of such images herself. No hearing date has been set.

Core concern High reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 3 underlying accounts · Added 21/09/2026

Event date unknownIndiaUnidentified image tool

Varanasi, Uttar Pradesh: a young woman reported that an unknown person made AI deepfake images placing her face on another man's photo and sent them to her future in-laws' Instagram accounts to break off her marriage; police registered a case against unknown persons

Dainik Bhaskar reported on 19 September 2026 that a young woman in the Chaubepur police-station area of Varanasi complained that an unknown person, who had been calling her repeatedly from an unknown number, created a fake Instagram profile resembling her name, used an AI tool to place her face on another young man's photograph to produce objectionable images, and sent them to the Instagram accounts of her prospective in-laws and her prospective brother-in-law with the aim of breaking off her prospective marriage. Chaubepur police registered a case against unknown persons on the basis of a public-hearing reference (1621/26); the station in-charge said digital information about the phone number and the fake account was being gathered with cyber experts to identify and locate the accused, and that action would follow once the accused's role was clear. The report is a single local account of the complaint; the dates of the images and the complaint are not stated.

Core concern Medium reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 20/09/2026

1 Apr 2024 to 5 Jan 2025Event location unknownUnidentified image tool

Jiangsu, China (Zhangjiagang court): a man used AI face-swap deep-synthesis to splice the faces of a person referred to as Yu and several others onto pornographic images, fabricated 'sexual' stories about them and posted the material repeatedly on overseas websites between April 2024 and January 2025; after two face-swapped nude images of Yu and Yu's ID were forwarded to Yu's work WeChat group with a fabricated claim of sex-for-money transactions, he was convicted of criminal defamation and sentenced to one year and three months (1 December 2025), upheld on appeal and listed by the Jiangsu High People's Court among its 2025 typical cases

According to the Jiangsu High People's Court's 2025 top-ten typical cases, published on 27 January 2026 and reported by The Paper, a man surnamed Wang used the deep-synthesis technology of AI software between April 2024 and January 2025 to splice the facial information of a person (pseudonym Yu) and several other people onto pornographic images, fabricated a large number of indecent images and 'sexual' topics about them, and repeatedly spread them in public posts on overseas websites. On 5 January 2025 he sent two AI face-swapped nude images bearing Yu's face and images of Yu's identity documents to a second man (dealt with separately) and fabricated the claim that he had had a sex-for-money transaction with Yu; although the second man said he would forward the material to Yu's work WeChat group, Wang did not clarify that it was false or effectively stop him, only deleting the contact. The second man forwarded the images to the WeChat group and claimed there that Yu sold sex, prompting extensive discussion inside and outside the group and, the court found, adverse effects on Yu's personal image, work and life, a serious lowering of Yu's social evaluation and a violation of Yu's dignity. The Zhangjiagang People's Court held that using deep-synthesis technology that ordinary people cannot easily identify to generate indecent images and fabricate sexual topics, spread repeatedly through information networks, was defamation of serious circumstances that seriously harmed social order; taking into account his voluntary surrender, it sentenced him on 1 December 2025 to one year and three months' imprisonment for defamation. The Suzhou Intermediate People's Court rejected his appeal. The High Court described the case as a typical example of punishing online defamation committed with AI.

Core concern High reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 1 source · 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.