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
1
Countries with reported events
1
Located 1 of 1 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 1 of 1 cases
1Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual 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 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.

1 2025
Reported severity Medium
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

1 of 1096 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
25 Sept 2025NetherlandsChatGPT (reported)

Dutch Council of State annuls master's student's thesis fraud sanction, finding an AI tool had garbled his own reference list

A master's student at the University of Groningen used an AI tool while preparing the reference list of his thesis. The examiner found many non-existent references, and on 25 September 2025 the Faculty of Economics and Business exam board declared all his work for the thesis course invalid for fraud, excluded him from the course for one year and told him he no longer qualified for a cum laude judgment. The university's examination appeals board upheld this on 31 March 2026. The student said he had only used an AI tool to categorise sources, giving it his existing reference list as input. On 12 August 2026 the Administrative Jurisdiction Division of the Council of State found that the references in the thesis text led to existing, relevant sources, that the AI had evidently garbled the student's own reference list, and that only carelessness, not fraud, had been shown. It annulled both decisions and ordered the thesis to be assessed again.

Core concern Medium reported severity

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 02/11/2026

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.