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
3
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

2 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 2 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 4cases 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

0 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.

1 20221 20231 20251 2026
Reported severity HighMediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 1101 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
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

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

1 Sept 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI drafting tool

Austria: Federal Administrative Court fines a litigant EUR 200 for hundreds of pages of submissions it found were AI-generated and unlabelled

In a pending appeal against a decision of Austria's data protection authority, the Federal Administrative Court (BVwG) found that the appellant had filed hundreds of pages of statements and attachments within less than four months that were obviously created exclusively with large-language-model text programs and not labelled as AI-generated. In a decision of 1 September 2026 the court imposed a EUR 200 penalty for wanton use of the court, holding that the AI-assisted filings repeated the same complaints, brought no new facts or evidence and ignored the EU labelling duty for AI-generated content. The court announced it as the first such penalty for AI submissions. The appellant is anonymised and the appellant's response is not reported.

Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 13/10/2026

15 Dec 2025 to 1 Oct 2026CanadaUnidentified AI drafting tool

Quebec Court of Appeal orders costs against a self-represented appellant whose AI-drafted filings cited two non-existent judgments (1 Oct 2026)

On 1 October 2026 the Quebec Court of Appeal ordered court costs against a self-represented appellant in a family-law contempt appeal as a sanction for appeal filings that, in the court's description, he had written with artificial intelligence and that contained two references to non-existent judgments and one inaccurate reference to a cited paragraph. The court held that AI may be used to draft appeal filings only if the litigant verifies the authorities, found that he had breached the Chief Justice's notice on AI use, and described his conduct as negligence rather than bad faith. It rejected the respondent's request for a separate $10,000 sanction and, for reasons unrelated to AI, reduced the contempt penalty imposed at first instance. The decision does not name the AI tool.

Core + contextual relations Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 12/10/2026

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.