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 is wider: it also records consequential decisions and claims about people. 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
3
Located 3 of 4 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
Recorded for 3 of 4 cases
3Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 1Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

4 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 1 not yet reviewed and 3 reviewed as unknown. Show all 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.

1cases 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

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.

2 20252 2026
Reported severity CriticalMedium
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 404 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
2025Event location unknownUnidentified legal research tool

Solicitor referred to regulator after relying on a client’s AI-generated legal citations

A June 2025 High Court judgment records that a claimant accepted using AI tools in legal research containing fictitious authorities. His solicitor admitted relying on that research without checking it and said he withdrew from litigated matters. The court referred the solicitor to the regulator, while declining contempt proceedings because it accepted he had not realised the citations were false. The judgment does not establish a later disciplinary penalty.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity

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

8 Oct 2025 to 2 Sept 2026IndiaUnidentified AI tool

Surat, India: a customs officer's ₹425 crore penalty order against a diamond trader relied on non-existent and misattributed case law that India's Supreme Court found 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'; the court set the order aside after the trader had lost in the Gujarat High Court

On 8 October 2025 the Additional Commissioner of Customs in Surat imposed a penalty of ₹425,27,99,100 (about ₹425 crore) on a diamond trader under Section 114 of the Customs Act, 1962, for allegedly misdeclaring a consignment of natural diamonds as lab-grown diamonds to pay a lower tariff. The trader's challenge was dismissed by the Gujarat High Court on 20 January 2026. Before the Supreme Court the trader argued that judgments and articles cited in the penalty order had been generated using artificial intelligence. On 2 September 2026 a bench of Justices Dipankar Datta and Sheel Nagu, after checking the material, found that the order relied on case law that was non-existent or carried fake citations, and on real cases that did not lay down the propositions attributed to them, which the court said 'appears to be a hallucination of AI'. Holding that the use of AI and reliance on this dubious material was fatal to the order, the court set aside both the penalty order and the High Court's order without deciding the merits, sent the matter for fresh adjudication by a different officer of the same rank, and left any action against the order's author to the appointing authority. The AI tool used is not named in the read reports.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Internal Action

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

4 May 2026FranceDIGI editorial tool

Créteil, France: a court suspended Gisi's (Infopro Digital) plan to cut eight sub-editor posts in favour of a generative-AI tool, finding a serious and characterised risk to the physical and mental health of several categories of staff

Gisi, the Infopro Digital subsidiary publishing L'Usine nouvelle, LSA and L'Argus de l'assurance (127 staff, 92 journalists), presented to its works council (CSE) on 4 May 2026 a reorganisation built around 'DIGI', an in-house generative-AI editorial tool, and on 12 May 2026 opened consultation on the reorganisation and on the resulting collective dismissal of its eight secrétaires de rédaction (sub-editors), to be replaced by two chefs d'édition, on the company's estimate that the tool would take over about 70% of sub-editor tasks. Some 250 journalists across Infopro Digital's 26 titles had struck in spring 2026 against a group-wide plan to cut 19 sub-editor posts, and according to Digital Watch (citing Stratégies) five of the eight Gisi sub-editors had received pre-dismissal interview letters. The CSE, relying on an expert report, went to the Créteil judicial court in July. On 15 September 2026 the référé judge found that deploying the plan without real-situation testing presented 'un risque grave et caractérisé sur la santé physique et mentale de plusieurs catégories de salariés', ordered the suspension of the reorganisation and the collective dismissal (including the redeployment processes) until real-situation tests and full pilot issues are produced, with a provisional penalty of 8,000 euros per day for three months, and refused the damages provision. Gisi said it would continue the tests and reserved the right to appeal.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Ongoing

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 6 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 20/09/2026

4 Feb 2026United StatesChatGPT

State v. Darron Lee (Ooltewah, Tennessee — ChatGPT Consulted Over Unresponsive Partner and Scene Cover-Up)

Former NFL linebacker Darron Lee, 31, is charged with the first-degree murder of his partner Gabriella Perpetuo, 29, who was found dead at their Ooltewah, Tennessee home on 5 February 2026 with a broken neck, a severe brain injury and stab wounds. Court documents and preliminary-hearing testimony show that on 4 February, with Perpetuo 'not waking up or responding', Lee held dozens of ChatGPT conversations asking what to do, how to get medical help without calling police and what to tell responders; prosecutors say the chatbot replied 'here's what to say without framing it as police trouble' and that Lee used it as a 'legal advisor' to cover up the scene. Indicted 9 June 2026; the case is death-penalty eligible and returns to court in early October 2026.

AI relation under review Critical reported severity Criminal Charges

Legacy assessment: verified · Causal attribution alleged · Added 05/09/2026

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: 30/09/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.