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
8
Countries with reported events
3
Located 6 of 8 cases · 2 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 8 of 8 cases

10 cases have no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 6 not yet reviewed and 4 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.

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

8 of 571 published cases

17 Sept 2025 to 21 Sept 2026United KingdomChatGPT

UK Upper Tribunal: solicitors' ChatGPT-drafted grounds in an asylum appeal cited fake cases and invented quotes; two individuals self-report to the SRA

A published Upper Tribunal (Immigration and Asylum Chamber) decision issued on 21 September 2026 records that the grounds of appeal and skeleton argument in a Namibian national's protection appeal were produced by a paralegal at her then solicitors using ChatGPT. The tribunal recorded her counsel's acceptance that the grounds cited fake cases, quoted passages absent from those judgments and attributed to the First-tier judge sentences he never wrote, and itself called one purported quotation pure invention. The September 2025 error-of-law hearing was adjourned, the appellant later withdrew three of her four original grounds, her remaining and amended grounds were found to disclose no error of law, and the tribunal directed the Home Office to file any wasted costs application against the firm. The decision states that two individuals have reported themselves to the Solicitors Regulation Authority; the Law Society Gazette reported the decision on 8 October 2026.

Core + contextual relations Low reported severity

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 09/10/2026

23 Dec 2025 to 28 Apr 2026United StatesUnidentified AI drafting tool

Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post

In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.

Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 09/10/2026

Dec 2025United StatesAmazon Buy for Me

Bobo Design Studio owner says Amazon's Buy for Me agent placed unwanted orders through her store without opt-in, forcing cancellations and refunds

The owner of Bobo Design Studio, a stationery brand that sells through its own Shopify store and has avoided Amazon, told Modern Retail that in late December 2025 she noticed a series of unusual orders from an @buyforme.amazon email address and discovered that her catalogue was listed for sale on Amazon through the Buy for Me feature, which she says she never opted into. Amazon's announcement says Buy for Me uses agentic AI to complete purchases on a brand's website on a customer's behalf. She said several orders were for products that were out of stock or no longer existed on her website, and that she cancelled several of those purchases and issued refunds. She contacted Amazon to opt out; Amazon says businesses can opt out by email and are removed promptly, and said it had received positive feedback on the programme. One listing showed a wrong stock image; Amazon says it does not generate AI images of a brand's products and the image's origin is unknown.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 30/09/2026

2025Event location unknownChatGPT

Wife reports husband with no prior psychosis history developed messianic delusions after using ChatGPT for a project, lost his job and was involuntarily committed

Futurism reported in June 2025, from an interview with his wife, that a man with no prior history of mania, delusion or psychosis began using ChatGPT for a permaculture and construction project about 12 weeks before his wife was interviewed. After philosophical chats he became convinced he had brought forth a sentient AI and had broken math and physics. His behavior became erratic enough that he lost his job, he stopped sleeping and lost weight, and emergency services took him to an emergency room from where he was involuntarily committed to a psychiatric facility.

Core concern Medium reported severity

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

22 Jan 2025 to 24 Feb 2025Event location unknownMX2.law

Three lawyers sanctioned after filing AI-generated fictitious citations

A Wyoming federal court fined three lawyers a total of $5,000 and removed the drafting lawyer from Wadsworth v. Walmart after a January 2025 filing cited eight nonexistent cases. The order identifies MX2.law as the drafting tool, records failure to verify its output and credits subsequent remedial steps.

Core concern Medium reported severity

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

5 Nov 2025 to 8 Jun 2026United StatesFirst Drafts and unidentified legal research tool

Fee suit against the City of Aberdeen (N.D. Miss.): four attorneys on both sides sanctioned after AI tools produced fabricated case citations; trial cancelled and both litigants left without counsel

In a fee dispute between a Louisiana attorney and the City of Aberdeen, Mississippi, briefs filed for both sides in late 2025 cited six cases that do not exist. The attorneys admitted the citations came from unverified AI use: the plaintiff's out-of-state counsel, Kathleen M. Wilson, drafted her filing with an AI drafting program called 'First Drafts', and the City's out-of-state counsel, Kathryn Y. Williams, used an in-house AI legal research tool. Senior Judge Sharion Aycock stayed the case and cancelled the March 2026 trial, then on 8 June 2026 revoked both attorneys' pro hac vice admissions, barred them from the district for two years and fined them $2,500 and $3,500, and disqualified and fined the two local counsel who had signed the filings. Both litigants were left without counsel and given 60 days to find new representation.

Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 29/09/2026

1 Mar 2025 to 30 Apr 2025CanadaChatGPT

Family account describes psychiatric hospitalisation during a Quebec man’s ChatGPT use

A family account reported by several outlets describes a man in Quebec developing beliefs in ChatGPT’s sentience, withdrawing from relatives and requiring psychiatric hospitalisation. The account attributes reinforcement of those beliefs to the chatbot. The man has not spoken publicly.

Core concern High reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 7 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026

1 Aug 2025 to 9 Sept 2026United StatesChatGPT

New Mexico Supreme Court fines attorney Stephen Aarons $5,000 and removes him from a murder appeal over ChatGPT-fabricated testimony

Santa Fe defense attorney Stephen Aarons used ChatGPT (OpenAI's o3) on a Rev.com transcript and the record to draft briefing in the murder appeal of Oscar Renee Sandoval; the brief contained fabricated witnesses and testimony (including police officers 'Michelle Amarillo' and 'Sanchez' and invented testimony attributed to real people) and misdescribed real precedents. After a 21 August 2026 show-cause hearing at which Aarons admitted he had not verified the output, the New Mexico Supreme Court's written order of 9 September 2026 held him in direct contempt, fined him $5,000 payable to the State Bar Client Protection Fund within 30 days, removed him from the case, barred him from appearing before the court pending a disciplinary-board referral, struck the filed briefs and reassigned the appeal to the public defender.

Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution established · 3 sources · Added 15/09/2026

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: 09/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.