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
6
Countries with reported events
3
Located 3 of 6 cases · 3 unknown
Languages in checked sources
3
Recorded for 5 of 6 cases
0Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 1Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

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

6cases 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.

4 20252 2026
Reported severity CriticalHighMedium
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

6 of 571 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
13 Aug 2026 to 8 Sept 2026United StatesSentinel AI (reported)

Lawsuit says a New Jersey employer dismissed a remote worker who sought exemption from AI facial-recognition webcam monitoring

NorthJersey.com reported on 5 October 2026 that a former remote employee of Sutherland Healthcare Solutions, based in Clifton, New Jersey, sued the company in New Jersey Superior Court in Atlantic City on 23 September 2026. According to the complaint as reported, the employer told the employee it would start monitoring her through her work laptop's webcam with software called Sentinel AI, which would use AI and facial recognition to confirm that she was the person at the desk, taking 160 still images in an eight-hour shift. The employee raised concerns in writing about the AI seeing inside her home and about whether the data would be securely stored, said the monitoring had increased her anxiety and stress and worsened a medical condition, and asked for a full or partial exemption as a reasonable accommodation. The suit says the request was denied, she was given a 24-hour ultimatum on 13 August 2026 to submit to the monitoring or resign, an offer to avoid the software by commuting to the office was rejected because it would require six hours of travel time, and her employment was terminated on 8 September 2026. The suit alleges that the employer violated New Jersey's anti-discrimination laws and retaliated against her for requesting reasonable accommodations. Sutherland did not respond to the outlet's requests for comment, and the allegations have not been tested in court.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity Lawsuit Filed

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 06/10/2026

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

15 Apr 2025Event location unknownChatGPT

Jacquez lawsuit alleges ChatGPT worsened delusions and contributed to psychiatric harm

The Jacquez lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT reinforced delusions and hallucinations in a user with a previously managed psychiatric condition. The plaintiff links those exchanges to hospitalisation and job loss. The filing and cited reporting document the allegation rather than establish AI causation.

AI relation under review High reported severity Lawsuit Filed

Legacy assessment: credible · Causal attribution alleged · Added 06/08/2026

13 Jul 2025Event location unknownChatGPT

Winters v. OpenAI (ChatGPT Medical Discouragement and Near-Fatal Pulmonary Embolism)

Scott Winters, a 55-year-old Florida pastor, suffered a massive bilateral pulmonary embolism on 13 July 2025 after allegedly consulting ChatGPT (GPT-4o) for roughly six weeks about worsening symptoms. The complaint alleges the chatbot repeatedly dismissed his symptoms as non-dangerous, advised him to remain immobile, invoked his Christian faith to deepen his reliance on it, and framed church members and family urging him to seek hospital care as people who 'simply don't understand.' He survived after ICU admission but lost his job, ministry and home. A lawsuit was filed 22 July 2026 in San Francisco County Superior Court.

AI relation under review Critical reported severity Lawsuit Filed

Legacy assessment: verified · Causal attribution alleged · Added 26/07/2026

15 Jul 2025MexicoChatGPT

Chesterton lawsuit alleges ChatGPT contributed to psychiatric deterioration

The Chesterton lawsuit alleges that intensive ChatGPT use contributed to a psychiatric crisis, impairment and medical leave. The plaintiff challenges the product’s design and safeguards. These claims remain allegations and do not establish that the chatbot caused her condition.

AI relation under review High reported severity Lawsuit Filed

Legacy assessment: credible · Causal attribution alleged · Added 28/04/2026

May 2025Event location unknownChatGPT

Brooks lawsuit alleges ChatGPT reinforced delusions and impaired his working life

The Brooks lawsuit alleges that ChatGPT repeatedly affirmed speculative mathematical ideas, reinforced delusional beliefs and contributed to impairment in the plaintiff’s working life. These are the plaintiff’s allegations; the law firm’s announcement is a source for the contents of the claim.

AI relation under review High reported severity Lawsuit Filed

Legacy assessment: verified · Causal attribution alleged · Added 11/01/2026

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.