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
1
Located 1 of 3 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
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.

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

3 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.

No known event years in this selection.

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

3 of 1099 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownNorwayUnidentified AI writing tool

Bergen-area car dealer refused to consider buyer's complaint about faulty new car because it was AI-written, Motor reports

A car buyer living outside Bergen, Norway, who bought a new Jeep Avenger in January 2025, complained to the dealership after repeated warning messages about the brakes, ABS and stability control and more than 40 days at workshops, and asked to cancel the purchase. According to the Norwegian motoring magazine Motor, the dealer rejected the complaint, and one of the reasons it gave was that the complaint was written with AI: the manager wrote in an email that the dealer does not take AI-generated complaints into account because they only reflect the information put in. The buyer, who comes from Ukraine, says he used AI as an aid to understand nuances and phrase himself correctly because his Norwegian is limited, and calls it unfair to reject a factual complaint because of the tool he used. He has taken the case to the Norwegian Consumer Authority (Forbrukertilsynet). The dealer told Motor it had answered the customer and does not comment on ongoing customer cases. The date of the email is not given.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified image and video tool

Southampton resident reports about five months of AI-generated celebrity persona messages and a £200 gift-card payment

The Daily Echo (29 June 2025), the Daily Mail (1 July 2025), and The Sun and the New York Post (2 July 2025) reported that a Southampton resident said the resident had been 'relentlessly' sent AI-generated or doctored celebrity images and videos on Facebook for about five months, with a fake prize certificate and requests for an activation fee to unlock a prize of £500,000 and a car. The resident said one persona presented as a celebrity said she loved the resident and asked for money, and that the resident paid £200 in Apple gift cards. The resident also said the messages were affecting the resident's mental health and said an acquaintance had lost over £1,000 to the same kind of scam (second-hand, not counted here). A University of Southampton AI expert described the messages as a phishing scam using an AI-generated prize certificate. All outlets rest on the resident's own account, and none reports verifying the messages. The start date is not established.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnidentified image and video tool

Manhattan DA says 12 seized websites sold AI-generated sexual deepfakes of about 1,200 people; the depictions' dates and an exact count are not established

On 14 September 2026 the Manhattan District Attorney's Office announced that it had seized, under a court order, 12 domain names of websites it says were used to disseminate, publish and sell non-consensual 'deepfake' videos, and said its investigations were ongoing. The office alleges that people under investigation used AI image and video creation tools to turn existing photos and videos of approximately 1,200 real people, overwhelmingly women and mostly public-facing figures, into sexual images and videos that were then sold. The 1,200 figure is the office's estimate and is not a documented count. WIRED reported that it had observed seizure notices on several of the sites in the days before the announcement and quoted researchers who described the videos as pornographic films manipulated to show the targets' faces, many apparently reposted from the defunct MrDeepFakes site. When the depictions were made and published is not established; one site claimed to have been online since 2018.

Core concern High reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 17/09/2026

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: 04/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.