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
2
Countries with reported events
1
Located 2 of 2 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 2 of 2 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 1Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

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

2 of 404 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Jul 2026IndiaUnidentified image tool

Delhi: a 25-year-old content creator says her photograph was morphed with AI face-swapping tools onto a vulgar image beside the Prime Minister, printed on banners paraded at a Cockroach Janta Party protest at Jantar Mantar and circulated online; FIR registered 24 September 2026, Delhi High Court orders Meta takedown within 24 hours and police protection on 25 September

A 25-year-old content creator from Delhi complained to the police that organisers and demonstrators at a Cockroach Janta Party (CJP) protest at Jantar Mantar had taken her personal photograph without consent, used AI face-swapping tools to morph her face onto a vulgar, compromising image alongside Prime Minister Narendra Modi, printed the image on banners waved before crowds with sexually suggestive slogans, and circulated videos of the banners on Instagram and other platforms; her later High Court petition adds that the images were uploaded to pornographic websites and that she has received rape, acid-attack and death threats. The Delhi Police registered an FIR against unknown persons at the New Delhi cyber police station on 24 September 2026 under the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and the Information Technology Act. On 25 September Justice Girish Kathpalia of the Delhi High Court directed Meta Platforms to remove the objectionable content within 24 hours, ordered the Delhi Police to give the petitioner complete protection and file a status report within a week, issued notice to the four CJP functionaries named in her plea, ordered the registry to redact the impugned web links from the petition (and, per PTI, her name), and listed the matter for 14 October 2026 (PTI, Ommcom News). The police told the court the FIR had been registered the previous day and that action would be taken expeditiously; no accused had been named or arrested at that stage. The petition says the protest took place in July 2026 and that she approached the police on 23 September; the CJP had not commented at the time of the first report.

Core concern High reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 9 sources, 7 underlying accounts · Added 26/09/2026

24 Jul 2026 to 26 Jul 2026IndiaUnidentified facial recognition system

Delhi: the police facial-recognition system logged at least 25 people who were in Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini jails as present at the Jantar Mantar student protests (20 to 26 July 2026), with timestamps on 24 to 26 July, on a sworn list of 2,873 persons with 'criminal antecedents' that the Supreme Court allowed police to register a fresh FIR against (Indian Express investigation, 4 September 2026)

In an affidavit of 17 August 2026 before the Supreme Court of India, Delhi Police said its Facial Recognition System (FRS) had identified 2,873 people with criminal antecedents at the Jantar Mantar protests of 20 to 26 July 2026 (2,402 through its 'Crime Kundli' biometric database and 471 through other criminal records). On 1 September the Court quashed the FIRs against the student protesters but let the police proceed against the 2,873; the police say any action will follow field verification. The Indian Express checked the 205 listed people facing murder, attempted-murder, rape or child-sexual-offence charges against police, prison and court records and found that at least 25 of them (17 accused of murder, four of rape (two or three under POCSO; the Express's narrative and its list differ), four of attempted murder) were lodged in Delhi's Tihar, Mandoli or Rohini prisons when the system logged them at the protest site with timestamps on 24, 25 and 26 July; some had been in custody for years. Delhi Police told the newspaper that further verification of the 2,873 was pending and, in its affidavit, that no action is taken solely on a facial-recognition result and that field verification follows each match. The police disclosed in 2022, in reply to a Right to Information request, that it treats a match with an 80 per cent similarity score as positive. Whether any of the 25 has since been named in the fresh FIR or visited for verification is not reported.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 24/09/2026

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.