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
1
Located 1 of 4 cases · 3 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases
4Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 2Contextual 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 2cases 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

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.

4 2025
Reported severity MediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 665 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Jun 2025Event location unknownLegal Genius (reported)

Johannesburg High Court refers a company's lawyers to the Legal Practice Council over fictitious citations that junior counsel said likely came from an AI tool

In an urgent application by Northbound Processing against the South African Diamond and Precious Metals Regulator, Acting Judge DJ Smit of the Gauteng High Court, Johannesburg, found while preparing judgment that two cases cited in the applicant's heads of argument did not exist. According to ITWeb, which saw the court documents, junior counsel first said a wrong version had been filed, a corrected version was found to contain two further incorrect citations, and on the court's direct inquiry junior counsel acknowledged that the citations likely originated from an AI tool called Legal Genius, used under deadline pressure. The judge accepted the legal team's apologies and found no intent to deceive, but referred the conduct of the applicant's legal practitioners to the Legal Practice Council for investigation (June 2025). The applicant obtained the relief it sought.

Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 14/10/2026

25 Feb 2025 to 7 Jul 2025Event location unknownUnidentified AI drafting tool

Colorado federal court fines two MyPillow defence lawyers $3,000 each over a brief with fabricated citations; lead counsel had admitted running it through AI

In the defamation case Coomer v. Lindell in the US District Court for the District of Colorado, a brief that lawyers for Mike Lindell and MyPillow filed on 25 February 2025 contained nearly thirty defective citations, including citations of cases that do not exist. At a conference on 21 April 2025 lead counsel Christopher Kachouroff told Judge Nina Y. Wang that he had drafted the motion and then 'ran it through AI' and had not personally checked the citations. Counsel later said a wrong draft had been filed by mistake; the court was not persuaded. On 7 July 2025 the court found that he and co-counsel Jennifer DeMaster had violated Rule 11 and fined each $3,000 (Kachouroff jointly with his law firm). The court did not sanction Lindell or his companies.

Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 14/10/2026

2025IndonesiaUnidentified image and video tool

Jakarta: AI-manipulated TikTok videos showed toll-road businessman Jusuf Hamka and his daughter in detainee uniforms with bribery and corruption narratives that Hamka denies; a TikTok account holder was arrested in November 2025 and is on trial at the Central Jakarta District Court, where Hamka's side refused restorative justice on 29 September 2026

Indonesian businessman Mohamad Jusuf Hamka reported to Jakarta police on 18 October 2025 that videos circulating on TikTok showed him and his daughter as if wearing prosecutors' detainee uniforms, tied to narratives of corruption, bribery and gratification over the Cawang-Pluit toll concession, which he denies and his lawyers call false; his lawyers say the faces were composited into staged scenes with AI, and that other content called him a 'toll mafia' and posted a fabricated poster of him running for president in 2029. Polda Metro Jaya's cyber directorate arrested the holder of the TikTok accounts on 27 November 2025; Hamka and his lawyers say the defendant admitted to police that he made the content on others' instructions for Rp500,000 per item; tvOneNews and TVRI note this is Hamka's side's claim within the contested case, and Poskota reports it is being examined at trial. The case file was reported complete (P21) on 12 August 2026 and the trial opened at the Central Jakarta District Court on 15 September 2026 under the Electronic Information and Transactions Law (Article 35 jo 51(1), maximum 12 years) and alternative counts. Hamka told reporters the content disturbed him and could damage his reputation and that the campaign was systematic. At the 29 September 2026 hearing the judges asked about restorative justice; Hamka's lawyer said there was no room for it unless the defendant named who ordered and paid for the content. The defendant's lawyer said the content related to his work as secretary-general of an anti-corruption committee and that the indictment was unclear.

Core concern Low reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 9 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 30/09/2026

22 Jan 2025 to 24 Feb 2025Event location unknownMX2.law

Three lawyers sanctioned after filing AI-generated fictitious citations

A Wyoming federal court fined three lawyers a total of $5,000 and removed the drafting lawyer from Wadsworth v. Walmart after a January 2025 filing cited eight nonexistent cases. The order identifies MX2.law as the drafting tool, records failure to verify its output and credits subsequent remedial steps.

Core concern Medium reported severity

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

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: 14/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.