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
3
Countries with reported events
2
Located 2 of 3 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
4
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
3Core 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 1cases 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

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

3 of 868 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
19 Mar 2026Event location unknownChatGPT

Brasília labour court upholds the for-cause dismissal of a manager it found used ChatGPT to alter a delivery photo to contest an iFood customer's complaint

In a judgment of 30 July 2026, the 2nd Labour Court of Brasília (Regional Labour Court of the 10th Region) upheld the dismissal for cause, on 19 March 2026, of a manager hired in June 2024. The employer said he had used artificial intelligence to falsify photos of orders on the iFood delivery app. A witness told the court she saw him use ChatGPT to alter a photo of an incomplete order, in which two of four soft drinks had been sent, so that it appeared complete, and use it to contest the customer's complaint to iFood support. The judge found this an act of dishonesty and misconduct that broke the trust required of a manager, rejected his claim that the dismissal was fabricated in retaliation for a claim he had filed the day before, dismissed all his claims, denied severance items and ordered him to pay 10% counsel fees, suspended because he was granted free legal aid. The legal news site Migalhas reported the judgment on 3 August 2026. No appeal is reported.

Core concern Medium reported severity Lawsuit Dismissed

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 23/10/2026

Sept 2026United StatesUnidentified image tool

Stanford University: the Residential & Dining Enterprises department used generative AI to alter a promotional photograph of three students, replacing a Hispanic male student with an AI-generated Black woman, slimming two students' faces and changing their clothing, on campus banners; the university said the undisclosed alteration violated its AI policy, apologised and opened an investigation (Stanford Review, Stanford Daily, NBC Bay Area, NBC News, 21-24 September 2026)

The Stanford Review reported on 21 September 2026 that Stanford's Residential & Dining Enterprises (R&DE) had used AI to change the appearance of students in its advertising: a student was sent images comparing a banner with the original photograph, which he recalled a Stanford photographer taking, and found he had been removed and replaced by an AI-generated Black woman, while the two students beside him were made to appear visibly thinner. Stanford confirmed to The Stanford Daily on 23 September that R&DE used generative AI to modify the appearance of several students in the image; the Daily reported that the students' clothing was changed into Stanford merchandise, two students' faces were slimmed and one student's race, gender and appearance were entirely changed, and the university said the alteration and its non-disclosure violated its policy prohibiting AI in producing or altering images of Stanford people; the banner at the Governor's Corner housing centre was taken down and staff training promised. On 24 September NBC News reported the university's statement that the alteration was 'a serious error in judgment', that it had apologised to the students whose images were altered or erased, and that it had opened an investigation. The replaced student, who first found the edit funny, said that seeing his identity changed and being left out made him feel 'silenced and erased from a representation that was supposed to include me', that it was upsetting, and that he was exhausted by the national media attention. According to the student, the original photograph was taken at a 2024 Lunar New Year dinner in a campus dining hall and had been used unaltered in earlier promotional material.

Core concern Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 25/09/2026

15 Sept 2026 to 16 Sept 2026IndonesiaUnidentified image tool

East Jakarta: police confirm a grade-9 student at a state junior high school edited several female schoolmates' photographs with AI into indecent images that circulated as WhatsApp stickers; a social-media post said about 200 images were sold; the student was later beaten by schoolmates angry at the images (police statements differ on whether the depicted students or their friends did so) and both matters are under police investigation (Kompas, ANTARA, detik, VIVA, Media Indonesia, 23-24 September 2026)

On 23 September 2026 the spokesperson of the East Jakarta metropolitan police (Polres Metro Jakarta Timur) confirmed to reporters that a grade-9 student at a state junior high school in Pulogadung, East Jakarta, had edited photographs of several female schoolmates using artificial intelligence so that they appeared indecent, and that the edited images had been made into WhatsApp stickers; the police women-and-children protection unit is investigating. The case surfaced through a post on Threads which said about 200 edited photographs had been produced and sold to others; Kompas.com noted on 24 September that the sale allegation still rested only on that post, VIVA reported that police were still checking the claim that the images had been sold, and ANTARA reported on 23 September that police were still establishing the editing method, the recipients and the number of depicted students. As of 24 September the depicted students had not filed a report (detik and VIVA date the spokesperson's telephone remarks 'Kamis (22/9/2026)', a date that is internally inconsistent) and police appealed to them to do so. According to the parents' account relayed by police, on 15 and 16 September several people took the student who made the images to an empty house and then to a reservoir in Kayu Putih, punched him on the nose, ears and head, kicked his chest and stomach and threatened him with a bladed weapon; police attribute the beating to friends of the depicted students (ANTARA, detik, VIVA), while Kompas.com's 23 September report quotes the same spokesperson as saying the depicted students themselves beat him; he filed an assault report, which police are handling alongside the image case, and the school has held mediation with the students' parents. No student or school is named in the reports.

Core concern High reported severity Involving minors Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 8 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 25/09/2026

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: 23/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.