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 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

In this selection

Published cases
2
Countries with reported events
1
Located 1 of 2 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 2 of 2 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 MediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 1101 published cases

Oct 2023NetherlandsMONOcam (reported)

Dutch driver says police AI phone camera flagged him for holding a phone while he scratched his head, and an officer approved a 380-euro fine

Dutch police use mobile smart cameras that apply artificial intelligence to photos of passing drivers to detect whether they are holding a mobile phone; a police officer then reviews each flagged photo before a fine is issued. A driver says that in October 2023, on the A2 motorway near Weert, such a camera photographed him with his right hand at his head and that he received a fine of 380 euros plus 9 euros in administration costs for holding a mobile device while driving. He says the flash photo, which he requested from the Central Judicial Collection Agency (CJIB), shows his empty hand near his face: he was scratching his head, his lease car allows hands-free calling, and he is left-handed. In a February 2024 blog post he writes that the camera was a MONOcam, that its algorithm judged that he was holding a device and that the reviewing police employee accepted that judgement, so that both the algorithm and a person erred; RTL Nieuws reported that the photo was probably taken by a MONOcam. Omroep Brabant described the fine as a mistake by the AI camera. The driver said the reviewing officer was probably biased by the algorithm's output and that a dark shadow in his hand could mislead a quick look. He lodged an objection with the Public Prosecution Service; it had not been decided when the reports appeared in February 2024, and a CJIB spokesperson, who would not comment on individual cases, suggested to RTL that he was unlikely to have to pay. No later outcome has been reported. He also told Omroep Brabant that he considers the cameras valuable for road safety, provided doubtful cases are not fined.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources · Added 01/11/2026

1 Mar 2023 to 22 Jun 2023Event location unknownChatGPT

New York federal judge sanctions two lawyers whose brief cited cases ChatGPT invented, after the chatbot told one of them the cases were real (2023)

In a passenger's personal-injury suit against the airline Avianca in the US District Court for the Southern District of New York, an opposition brief filed on 1 March 2023 cited judicial opinions that did not exist. The court found that the lawyer who did the research had used ChatGPT, which fabricated the cases, and that when he asked the chatbot whether one of them was real it replied that it had supplied real authorities that could be found on legal databases. On 22 June 2023 the court found bad faith by the two lawyers, based on their conduct after the citations were questioned, and imposed a USD 5,000 penalty jointly on them and their firm, together with letters to the client and to each judge falsely named as an author of the fake opinions.

Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources · Added 28/10/2026

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: 11/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.