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
1
Recorded for 8 of 8 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

8 of 1099 published cases

Event date unknownAustraliaUnidentified AI checkout camera monitoring system

Australian supermarket cashier got final written warning after AI checkout camera system flagged scanning errors, union submission says

The Shop, Distributive and Allied Employees' Association (SDA), an Australian union representing retail, warehouse and fast-food workers, told the federal parliament's Joint Select Committee on Artificial Intelligence in its written submission that a supermarket employee with more than 30 years' service had recently received a final written warning for scanning inaccuracy generated by an AI checkout monitoring system. According to the union, the system uses overhead cameras to compare items moved through the checkout with items scanned and automatically flags possible mismatches, which set off escalation to head office and pressure on store managers to act. The SDA says her error rate was about 0.18 per cent, roughly one error in 533 items scanned, and that she was never told what standard the system applied. The Sydney Morning Herald (10 October 2026) and Guardian Australia (20 October 2026) reported the case; the Herald says the union has challenged the warning. The account is the union's; the supermarket is not named, and its response and the result of the challenge are not reported.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 24/10/2026

Dec 2019 to Jul 2020United StatesUnidentified facial recognition system

US: FTC says Rite Aid's facial recognition falsely matched shoppers to a watchlist, leading staff to search an 11-year-old girl and call police on a woman

In a complaint filed in federal court in Pennsylvania on 19 December 2023, the US Federal Trade Commission alleged that the pharmacy chain Rite Aid used facial recognition in its stores to match customers against a database of people it suspected of shoplifting or other wrongdoing, and that staff acted on the match alerts by following, searching, ejecting and publicly accusing customers and by calling the police. The FTC says many alerts were false positives: employees recorded thousands of false-positive alerts between December 2019 and July 2020, staff stopped and searched an 11-year-old girl on a false match, and employees called the police on a Black woman matched to an image of a white woman with blonde hair. Rite Aid agreed to a proposed order barring it from using facial recognition in retail stores for five years, without admitting or denying the allegations.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 22/10/2026

Oct 2026Event location unknownChatGPT Dot (reported)

Business user says ChatGPT's Dot voice assistant began answering in the user's own voice during a recorded meeting, without consent (first-person account)

In a public post to r/OpenAI created on 17 October 2026, a person who says their small retail team uses ChatGPT on a business subscription writes that they had started that week to use Dot, ChatGPT's assistant, by phone call, including to record and summarise meetings. During a recorded meeting with a store manager, the poster says, the assistant repeated what was being said aloud and then answered in the poster's own voice and cadence; asked why its voice was different, it apologised for slipping into a different voice, and later said it could not be the poster's voice. The poster writes that they and the manager were both freaked out and hung up, that they did not authorise it to clone their voice, and that it may have been a glitch or hallucination. A commenter says voice modes have mimicked users' voices before; the poster replies that they were not aware of this. The poster still recommends the product. The account is uncorroborated and no recording or vendor response is reported.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 18/10/2026

Event date unknownEvent location unknownWoolworths Olive

Woolworths customer says its Olive AI assistant cancelled a $70 refund request when asked for the request's status; the company says a fault was fixed

Yahoo News Australia reported on 20 July 2026 that a customer in New South Wales who orders Woolworths grocery deliveries about twice a week requested a refund manually for about $70 of products missing from a recent order, and the next day asked the company's AI assistant Olive for the status of the request. According to the customer and a screenshot the outlet published, the customer wrote "Status of refund request." and the assistant replied "Alright, I've cancelled your refund request." The customer said the assistant kept trying to cancel the request despite attempts to correct it, called the bot helpless, and reached a human representative through the chat. The customer received the refund. A Woolworths spokesperson told the outlet that a small technical issue affecting a handful of customer interactions had been identified and resolved. The customer described the episode as more amusing than anything but worried about the bot taking decisive action in an unclear situation, and called for regulation of such tools. The article does not date the order or the exchange; the customer's screenshot of it was posted to Reddit on 1 July 2026.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 13/10/2026

Feb 2026United StatesUnidentified voice-cloning tool

Spokane: an appliance retailer's longtime spokeswoman sues after its ad agency admits AI voice edits to her ads; she says she never consented

Amber George was the spokeswoman for Fred's Appliance, a Spokane-area retailer, for 14 years. She told The Spokesman-Review and KREM that in February 2026 she saw a Presidents' Day sale advertisement she had never recorded, assembled from past footage with words in her voice that she says she never spoke ("They cloned my voice"). Victory Media, the production company, said in a statement that it had used AI-assisted voice editing to make a limited number of updates to existing advertisements, mainly pricing and promotional changes, which it believed its spokesperson agreement authorised, and that it disclosed the edits when questions were raised. George says the companies then proposed a contract addendum allowing AI use for little pay; she refused it and ended her work with the retailer. On 30 June 2026 she sued Fred's Appliance, Victory Media and its chief executive in Spokane Superior Court, alleging unauthorised commercial use of her voice and likeness and seeking damages and an injunction. Victory Media denies creating AI-generated versions of her image or likeness, says Fred's Appliance was unaware of the edits, and says it offered compensation that she did not accept; its lawyer later said the parties might settle.

Core concern Low reported severity Lawsuit Filed

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 12/10/2026

Nov 2025United StatesAmazon Buy for Me

Mochi Kids owner says Amazon's Buy for Me agent sent orders she fulfilled before realising their source, and a wholesale partner questioned the listings

The owner of Mochi Kids, a children's apparel brand that has deliberately avoided selling on Amazon, told Modern Retail that she found her catalogue of 4,000 products for sale on Amazon through the Buy for Me feature after watching another merchant's viral video posted on 28 December. 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 she had received around 16 Buy for Me orders since November, fulfilled some of them before realising they came from Amazon, and has been cancelling all such orders; she planned to email Amazon to opt out. Modern Retail reports that one of the brand's wholesale partners, which bars Amazon sales of its products, contacted the retailer after finding its products listed, and that the retailer had to reassure it that it had not listed them intentionally; the owner said it builds distrust. Amazon says businesses can opt out by email and are removed promptly, and that it had received positive feedback on the programmes. No net financial loss or lost contract is reported.

Core concern Low reported severity

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

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

6 Aug 2026United KingdomFacewatch facial recognition

London shopper says staff told him Sainsbury's facial recognition flagged him as a shoplifter and he was escorted out; retailer blames human error

On 6 August 2026 Matt Arnold, a comedy promoter, was refused service at a self-service till in Sainsbury's East Dulwich store and escorted out by two managers, who cited an incident earlier in the week. He says a staff member told him he had been identified by the AI and that he saw a CCTV monitor alert with a red circle around his face as he left. Sainsbury's apologised the next day, said the cause was human error rather than the facial recognition technology, and paused its Facewatch system at the store while it investigates. Facewatch says a correct alert was sent and mishandled in store; the BBC reports Sainsbury's claim that staff targeted the wrong person after a separate flag. Whose face the system matched is unresolved.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement disputed · Causal attribution disputed · 2 sources · Added 16/09/2026

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: 04/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.