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
2
Located 2 of 4 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases
0Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 4Contextual 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.

0cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 0cases 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

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.

1 20252 2026
Reported severity Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 936 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownUnited KingdomAnima Annie

London: AI-generated GP record summary falsely listed diabetes, and a healthy patient was invited to diabetic eye screening, Fortune reports

Fortune reported on 20 July 2025 that a London patient, a healthy man in his mid-20s, had recently received a letter inviting him to diabetic eye screening although he had never been diagnosed with diabetes. He told Fortune he briefly worried he had been diagnosed without knowing, then assumed an admin error. The next day a nurse at a routine blood test questioned the diagnosis and showed him the notes on the system, which were AI-generated summaries. In his full records, which Fortune reviewed, the entry that introduced the diagnosis was listed as a summary 'generated by Annie AI', the tool of Anima Health. It said he had presented with chest pain and shortness of breath from likely angina due to coronary artery disease, that he had been diagnosed with type 2 diabetes and was on medications with dosages, and it gave the source document's address as a fictitious 'Health Hospital' on '456 Care Road' in 'Health City'. According to the patient and other records Fortune reviewed, none of these details was accurate; the entry appeared around the time he had attended hospital with tonsillitis, which it did not mention. Fortune writes that the invitation was presumably based on the erroneous summary. An NHS representative told Fortune the practice makes limited use of supervised AI, that Anima only suggests codes and a summary to a human reviewer, and that the error was a one-off human error: a summariser had spotted the mistake but, distracted, saved the original version instead of the corrected one. Anima Health did not respond to Fortune.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 26/10/2026

Nov 2025ChinaUnidentified image tool

Shanghai court convicts a man who, police say, used AI software to fake food-poisoning medical records and extort restaurants into paying compensation

Police in Yangpu district, Shanghai, say a customer extorted restaurants with medical records he had forged using AI software; Xinhua dates his first successful claim to November 2025. In the police account (Shangguan News, 26 February 2026) he claimed to have fallen ill after eating at a barbecue restaurant, showed a hospital visit record and medical invoice, and demanded 2,000 yuan in medical costs, threatening complaints and publicity; the restaurant paid. Police checked with other diners and the hospital, found he had no hospital record and the materials were forged, and say he confessed to using AI software to alter images of other people's medical records, replacing the name, date and amount. Police say he succeeded twice and failed twice, obtaining 2,500 yuan, and that he also filed complaints to market regulators with the forged material to pressure the restaurants. According to Xinhua's June report and the Procuratorate Daily, the Yangpu District People's Court convicted him of extortion and sentenced him to four months' criminal detention, suspended for four months, and a 2,000 yuan fine.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources · Added 17/10/2026

Oct 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI medical scribe

First-person post: patient says the AI summary of a doctor's appointment listed, among current medications, a drug the patient has never taken

In a Bluesky post on 14 October 2026, a patient says their doctor asked whether they minded his use of AI to summarise the appointment the day before. The patient says they explained their objections and then consented because they wanted to see the summary it generated. When the summary was posted in the patient portal, it listed among the patient's current medications a drug the patient says they do not take and have never taken. In a reply shortly afterwards the patient said the drug had not made its way to the official medication list but was listed in the clinical notes, and that they had messaged the doctor. In an update the next day the patient wrote that they and the doctor agree the medication was likely inserted because the AI took something else the doctor said for the drug's name, and that the doctor tells them the record has been corrected. The AI product, the medication and the summary are not public, and the doctor's own account is known only through the patient.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 15/10/2026

Mar 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI medical scribe

Reported by ABC News (Australia): an AI scribe used at a urology appointment inserted a false claim that the patient took psychedelic mushrooms into her record; the error reached her GP in a post-operative letter and was corrected only after she complained

A patient who consented to having her first urology appointment transcribed by an artificial-intelligence scribe discovered, after her kidney-stone surgery in March 2026, that the post-operative letter her specialist sent to her GP stated she micro-dosed psychedelic mushrooms and that this could explain earlier bleeding around the kidneys. She says she has never taken mushrooms. She was receiving workers' compensation and feared that any mention of illegal drugs on her medical record could affect her case. After she complained, the urologist sent a letter of apology saying the practice takes documentation accuracy seriously, that she could not determine how the claim came to be included but that it appeared to be an error during the 'dictation or transcription process', that the correspondence had been corrected and that she would review how AI was used in her practice. The doctor did not answer ABC's questions about what changes had been made. Australia's practitioner regulator AHPRA told ABC that clinicians must check all AI-scribe output; the patient says it was clear her doctor had not. The account is a single ABC News report (14 August 2026) based on the patient's interview and the letters she received; the scribe product and the clinic's location are not named.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · 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: 26/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.