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
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

39 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 2022
Reported severity HighLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

3 of 964 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
15 Nov 2022 to 27 May 2023Event location unknownUnidentified video tool

Australian Federal Court orders man to pay A$343,500 for posting AI-generated deepfake intimate images of six women, in eSafety's first civil penalty case

On 26 September 2025 the Federal Court of Australia ordered a man to pay civil penalties of A$343,500 plus costs, in what the eSafety Commissioner said was the first proceeding to impose a civil penalty under the Online Safety Act 2021. On facts he admitted, he posted 12 non-consensual deepfake intimate images of six women ordinarily resident in Australia to a deepfake website between November 2022 and May 2023. He made each one by uploading a photo of the woman found online to a webpage that created semi-naked or naked images and saving the generated image. He refused eSafety's removal notice, so two images stayed online for almost a year, and he admitted posting some later images in retaliation against people involved in issuing the notice. Each woman complained to eSafety, and the court found the posts were likely to have caused them hurt and distress. The eSafety Commissioner called this kind of deepfake abuse a misuse of easily accessible AI tools.

Core concern High reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 5 sources · Added 23/10/2026

11 Nov 2022 to 16 Nov 2022CanadaAir Canada chatbot

Air Canada website chatbot wrongly told a bereaved passenger a fare reduction could be claimed after travel; BC tribunal ordered the airline to pay damages

On 11 November 2022, after a grandparent died in Ontario, a passenger asked the support chatbot on Air Canada's website about bereavement fares. The chatbot's response, in a screenshot later filed in evidence, said a ticket could be submitted for a reduced bereavement rate within 90 days of issue, including after travel, while the airline's bereavement webpage said the policy did not apply after travel was completed. Relying on that answer, the passenger bought full-fare one-way tickets between Vancouver and Toronto for $794.98 and $845.38 and applied for the reduction on 17 November. In February 2023 an Air Canada representative admitted the chatbot had provided misleading words. On 14 February 2024 the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal found negligent misrepresentation, rejected the airline's argument that it could not be held liable for its chatbot, found it had not taken reasonable care to ensure the chatbot was accurate, and ordered it to pay $812.02, including $650.88 in damages.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 12/10/2026

2022TaiwanUnidentified voice-cloning tool

Taiwan: a romance-fraud ring used AI voice-changing software so members sounded like young women on dating platforms; prosecutors say more than 20,000 people were defrauded of over NT$900 million and indicted 57 people in September 2026

According to the Taipei District Prosecutors Office and Taiwan's Criminal Investigation Bureau, as reported by the Liberty Times and Public Television Service (PTS) on 2 September 2026, a fraud ring set up in 2022 by a married couple ran fake romances on dating platforms. An engineer in the ring built AI voice-changing software that loaded the voiceprints of 22 women working for the ring as hostesses into its chat system, so that any member, male staff and older women included, spoke to targets in a sweet young woman's voice. Members pressed the people they courted to buy expensive health supplements and gifts and to pay pocket money, moving costs and beauty courses, and the ring sent hostesses to meet some targets, in some cases for sex, to keep them paying. Prosecutors put the victims at more than 20,000 and the proceeds at more than NT$900 million since 2022, and say many victims are still living in debt. After searches in May and July 2026, the Taipei District Prosecutors Office indicted 57 defendants on 2 September 2026 under the Fraud Crime Hazard Prevention Act and asked for sentences of 25 and 18 years for the couple.

Core concern High reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 02/10/2026

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: 27/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.