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
2
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 0Contextual cases
AI made a decision or claim about someone

1 case has no reviewed AI-to-person relation yet: 0 not yet reviewed and 1 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.

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.

1 20251 2026
Reported severity Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 404 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
12 Mar 2025 to 15 Mar 2025AustraliaChatGPT

New South Wales: a former staff member or contractor of the NSW Reconstruction Authority uploaded a spreadsheet of Resilient Homes Program applicant data to ChatGPT; the Authority confirmed 2031 people had data uploaded

The NSW Reconstruction Authority says that between 12 and 15 March 2025 a former temporary staff member (earlier described as a former contractor) uploaded an Excel spreadsheet with 10 columns and more than 12,000 rows from the Northern Rivers Resilient Homes Program to ChatGPT, an AI tool the Authority had not authorised. The Authority first disclosed the breach on 6 October 2025 as affecting up to 3000 people and later confirmed through external forensic analysis that 2031 people had data uploaded, including names, contact details, addresses, dates of birth and sensitive personal information (an earlier notice also listed health information). It reports no evidence that the data was made public or accessed by a third party, and that no driver licence, Medicare, passport or Tax File Numbers were included. The Authority apologised, offered ID Support NSW assistance and committed to compensate reasonable document replacement costs. One participant told the ABC they were concerned. No misuse of the data is reported.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026

19 Aug 2026FranceUnidentified AI tool

Rennes administrative court fines a claimant 500 euros for an abusive tax appeal it found manifestly written with an AI tool and too imprecise to assess

According to Gossement Avocats, which quotes the order, and the court's vice-president on France Inter, an order of 19 August 2026 (n°2508168) of the tribunal administratif de Rennes rejected a claimant’s application contesting a VAT reassessment and fined the claimant 500 euros for an abusive application. As quoted by Gossement Avocats, the order says the application had manifestly been written with an artificial intelligence tool and that its grounds lacked the most elementary details needed to assess them. The court also found it inadmissible because no prior complaint to the tax service was shown, and noted that it repeated a request with substantially the same object rejected in October 2025. The court’s vice-president cited the case on France Inter; commentators stress that AI use alone was not the basis for the fine.

Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources · Added 29/09/2026

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.