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

1 case has no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 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.

0cases 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

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.

No known event years in this selection.

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

1 of 404 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
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.