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
4
Countries with reported events
3
Located 3 of 4 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
4
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases
11Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 4Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

4 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 2 not yet reviewed and 2 reviewed as unknown. Show all 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.

2cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 0cases with a recorded regulatory response 1cases 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.

4 2024
Reported severity Medium
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 964 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
2024RussiaUnidentified AI tools

Moscow: courts reinstate a sewing-company manager dismissed after refusing two-hour days that her employer tied to introducing AI, T-Zhurnal reports

T-Zhurnal (T-Bank's magazine) reported on 16 September 2026, in a lawyer's account of two court decisions, that the sewing company employing a Moscow resident as a full-time manager began cost-cutting in mid-2024 and introduced neural-network and AI technology, and told her that from July she would work 09:00 to 11:00, eight hours a week, with pay reduced in proportion. She refused and was dismissed for refusing to continue work after changes to her contract terms. The employer said that since it began introducing AI many of the manager's tasks were done by programs and full-time work was no longer needed, and that she had worked badly; she said the change was a disguised redundancy and that her post was to be cut and partly replaced by programs and AI. According to the article, the district court (case 2-1354/2025) found that other employees confirmed the cost-cutting and that the manager's work was planned to be fully replaced by neural networks, held that the refusal of part-time work had to be treated as a redundancy, and ordered her reinstatement with back pay and moral damages. The Moscow City Court (case 33-34099/2025) upheld the reinstatement and reduced the back-pay calculation; the court's case portal lists that appeal as concluded on 24 July 2025. The amounts are not given.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 25/10/2026

Aug 2024Event location unknownUnidentified AI presentation and data-analysis tool

Beijing court rules an insurer unlawfully dismissed a legal officer for uploading an internal audit table to a third-party AI platform

A legal officer at an insurance company, responsible for compliance audits and risk checks, uploaded a company audit-issues data table that she had compiled and processed to a third-party AI platform in July 2024, to help make presentations and analyse data. According to the court's account, she did so on the recommendation of company leadership. In August 2024 the company served her a notice terminating her labour contract for serious violation of its rules, arguing that as a compliance employee bound by a confidentiality agreement she had exposed internal audit material to a platform that collects and retains user data for model iteration. The Chaoyang District People's Court in Beijing ruled at first instance that the dismissal was unlawful: the company's rules did not prohibit third-party AI tools, it had given no training on their use, and it had not shown that the table was core confidential information or that any leak or loss occurred. The court revoked the termination notice, ordered the contract to continue and ordered the company to pay the employee's year-end bonus shortfall, performance pay and lost wages. Kuai Keji, citing China National Radio, reported the ruling on 13 October 2026 and Beijing Daily on 14 October; both say the judgment has taken effect. No source names the insurer or the AI platform.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 15/10/2026

30 Jan 2024IndiaUnidentified voice-cloning tool

Aligarh parent reportedly transfers money after an alleged AI voice-impersonation call

Hindi reporting describes a parent in Aligarh transferring INR 400,000 after callers impersonated police and used a voice presented as his son’s. Police reportedly stopped INR 86,000. The AI attribution and transfers have not been independently verified here; final net loss is unknown.

AI relation under review Medium reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 15/09/2026

26 Nov 2024United StatesMoxie

Moxie companion-robot shutdown: children's grief after Embodied's collapse

On 26 November 2024 Embodied Inc. told families that it was closing after a lead investor withdrew from a funding round, and that Moxie, its $799 cloud-dependent conversational robot marketed to children aged 5-10 and to families of autistic children, would stop working 'within days'. Parents posted videos of children crying as they were told their robot friend was going to 'die'; the company offered no refunds and a scripted letter from the fictional 'Global Robotics Lab' to help explain the shutdown. A peer-reviewed CHI 2026 case study of the company's communications and users' reactions found that, with no offboarding design, the emotional burden of ending the bond was shifted onto parents. The servers went dark at the end of January 2025; a volunteer-built local server, OpenMoxie, let some owners keep a reduced version running.

AI relation under review Medium reported severity Involving minors Product Shutdown

Legacy assessment: credible · Causal attribution alleged · Added 05/09/2026

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: 27/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.