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
0Core 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 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 Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

1 of 917 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
19 Aug 2025IndiaUnidentified AI tool

India: Supreme Court says an Andhra Pradesh trial court dismissed defendants' objections citing AI-generated non-existent judgments, calling it misconduct

On 19 August 2025 a trial court in Andhra Pradesh hearing a suit for an injunction over a property dismissed the defendants' objections to an advocate-commissioner's report on the property, relying on four purported Supreme Court judgments that, according to the defendants and later the courts, do not exist. The defendants challenged the order in the Andhra Pradesh High Court, which, as the Supreme Court recorded, realised the judgments were AI-generated, recorded a word of caution, and on 21 January 2026 dismissed their petition on the merits. On appeal, the Supreme Court said in an order of 27 February 2026 that it took cognisance of the trial court deploying AI-generated non-existing, fake or synthetic alleged judgments, that a decision based on such judgments is not an error in decision making but misconduct, and directed that the trial court not proceed on the basis of the advocate-commissioner's report while the appeal is pending. In May 2026 the Supreme Court asked the Bar Council of India to set up an expert panel on AI-generated fake judgments. The AI tool is not named, the sources read do not name the judge, and no outcome of the appeal had been reported in the sources read.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 25/10/2026

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: 25/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.