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
2
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 1Contextual 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 1cases 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.

3 2025
Reported severity Medium
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

3 of 628 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
23 Dec 2025 to 28 Apr 2026United StatesUnidentified AI drafting tool

Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post

In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.

Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 09/10/2026

Apr 2025 to May 2025Event location unknownCoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Gemini (reported)

Insurance claimant loses discovery relief after her lawyers file AI-generated false citations; special master's order sanctions the two firms $31,100

In an order dated 5 May 2025 and filed on 6 May in Lacey v. State Farm (C.D. Cal.), a special master struck the claimant's supplemental briefs and denied the discovery relief she sought after her lawyers filed briefs built on unverified AI-generated legal research: about nine of 27 citations were wrong and at least two cited authorities did not exist. One lawyer's sworn declaration says the outline he circulated relied on generative AI features in CoCounsel, Westlaw Precision and Google Gemini, and that he could not tell whether particular errors came from his transcription or from a tool; co-counsel at the second firm say they used no AI tools and did not know AI had been used. The order makes the two firms jointly pay $31,100, states the client was not at fault and will not bear the awards, and imposes no penalty on individual lawyers.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 29/09/2026

9 Sept 2025 to 4 Nov 2025VietnamUnidentified AI tool

Cà Mau, Vietnam: a 25-year-old woman was prosecuted for using AI-made fake bank 'disbursement' messages to persuade an acquaintance to hand over more than 444 million đồng in 'loans' between September and November 2025

On 19 September 2026 the investigation police of Cà Mau province announced that they had prosecuted, detained and searched the home of a 25-year-old woman from Phú Tân commune for fraud. According to the police account carried by Tuổi Trẻ, VnExpress, Phụ Nữ Việt Nam and Đọc Nhanh, from early September 2025, under debt pressure, she told a woman in the same locality that her bank loan, applied for through an insurance package, had been approved and asked to borrow money for travel and paperwork costs while awaiting disbursement. To build trust she used artificial-intelligence technology to fabricate bank disbursement-notification messages and showed them to the victim, promising to repay in full and to lend her money in turn. Trusting these, the victim handed over cash and made transfers many times between 9 September and 4 November 2025, totalling more than 444 million đồng. On 4 November 2025 she went to the bank branch herself and found there was no loan; she reported the matter to police. The accused is not named in this record.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 20/09/2026

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: 12/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.