Skip to main content

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

In this selection

Published cases
3
Countries with reported events
3
Located 3 of 3 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 3 of 3 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.

Response counts currently use each case’s principal recorded outcome. Further proceedings may be described in its account.

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.

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

3 of 1096 published cases

Jul 2025IndiaPoshan Tracker face recognition

India: pregnant women and new mothers report being cut off from take-home rations when the Poshan Tracker app's face match failed

From 1 July 2025 India's Ministry of Women and Child Development made a facial recognition check in the government's Poshan Tracker app mandatory before pregnant women and nursing mothers receive take-home rations under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme; the app compares the woman's live face with her Aadhaar identity photograph. In July 2025 Decode reported from Delhi that a woman eight months pregnant returned to her Anganwadi centre for a third day trying to get the app to recognise her, and a worker said she gave food to a new mother the app would not recognise and recorded it by hand. In August 2025 the Karnataka Anganwadi workers' union told The South First that the faces of pregnant and nursing mothers change so they no longer match their registration images, and that some mothers leave without their rations. In March 2026 a Decode investigation supported by the Pulitzer Center reported that a mother in Jharkhand was cut off from supplementary nutrition ten weeks after giving birth because the software could not match her face to a photograph taken eight years earlier, that a pregnant woman in Bihar who was anaemic went four months without rations because the system could not match her to an older Aadhaar photograph, that one Bihar centre had removed three pregnant women and five nursing mothers whose faces no longer matched, and that a Jharkhand worker was told to remove at least four children whose eligibility depended on their mothers' failed face matches. Decode also reports failures earlier in the process, when women cannot receive a one-time password on an Aadhaar-linked phone. Government figures cited by Decode show 52.7% of eligible beneficiaries had received rations through facial recognition by 31 December 2025. A researcher who analysed the app for Decode found Google's ML Kit face-detection library in it; Google said ML Kit cannot recognise individuals, and the government has not disclosed who built the matching system. After workers' protests, a February 2026 app update let workers upload other identity documents for pregnant and nursing women, subject to a supervisor's approval. Decode reports the Bihar woman later gave birth to a healthy baby, while her name remained missing from the system.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources · Added 02/11/2026

1 Jul 2026 to 14 Oct 2026United KingdomAI Andi

Oxfordshire GP practice patients say its AI phone triage left them without help or misread why they called; practice reports mostly positive feedback

Newbury Street Practice, a GP surgery in Wantage, Oxfordshire, began routing every incoming call through the AI Andi triage system in July 2026. In a Local Democracy Reporting Service article published by BBC News on 14 October 2026, one patient says she waited in the phone queue for 20 minutes before the AI system decided it could not help her, and described the system as a wall that puts patients off contacting the practice. Another patient says she was left frustrated when the system took her call to be about pregnancy. A practice spokesperson said most feedback had been positive (79% in the first month), that some patients less confident with technology had found the change harder, and that patients are now offered the option of speaking to a human receptionist. The local MP said residents had contacted him about the system.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 17/10/2026

20 May 2026United StatesMeta internal AI systems (reported)

US: 26 Meta employees sue alleging an AI-assisted May 2026 layoff selection penalized workers on protected leave, Meta says people made the decisions

On 20 May 2026 Meta began notifying about 8,000 employees (roughly 10 percent of its workforce) that they had been selected for layoff. On 13 July 2026 twenty-six anonymous employees who had taken or requested medical, pregnancy, parental or family leave, or a disability accommodation, sued Meta in the US District Court for the Northern District of California. The complaint alleges, on information and belief, that Meta used internal AI-assisted systems (including the Metamate assistant, keystroke and activity monitoring, AI-token-usage dashboards and algorithmic performance ranking) to score, rank and select employees, and that these inputs could not accumulate during protected leave, so plaintiffs on leave were disproportionately selected. Meta says workforce decisions were made by people, not AI, and that no selection decision was made by AI. On 17 July 2026 the court denied a temporary restraining order, recording that the parties dispute whether Meta used AI in the terminations and finding serious questions on the merits but no shown likelihood of success. One plaintiff was voluntarily dismissed on 3 August 2026. The preliminary injunction motion was argued on 24 August 2026 and taken under submission. The plaintiffs are pursuing their merits claims in arbitration and the allegations are unproven.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity

AI involvement disputed · Causal attribution disputed · 10 sources, 5 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026

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: 02/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.