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 1 of 2 cases · 1 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 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.

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

2 of 404 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
2 Jun 2026PortugalGemini (reported)

Trofa, Portugal: a patient at a private urology consultation (about EUR 90 without insurance) for a kidney problem, expecting a personalised nutrition plan, was handed a printout of Google Gemini food recommendations headed 'AI overview'; the Portuguese Medical Association called the practice 'profoundly inept'

According to Correio da Manhã, during a urology consultation at the Trofa Saúde Hospital da Trofa on 2 June 2026, a patient being followed for a kidney problem expected a personalised nutrition plan but received a printed sheet of food recommendations headed 'vista geral de IA' ('AI overview'), generated by Google's Gemini. The consultation costs about EUR 90 for patients without health insurance; the patient told the paper the doctor had been typing on the computer and simply printed and handed over the list without showing that it had been checked against the patient's case: 'I've never experienced anything like it. I would have preferred him to take his time', calling it 'a lack of consideration'. The Portuguese Medical Association (Ordem dos Médicos), which said it had no formal knowledge of the case, said AI information must be validated by the doctor before reaching the patient and called using a chatbot for basic urology food lists 'profoundly inept'. Trofa Saúde did not respond to the paper over three weeks.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 3 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 29/09/2026

Mar 2026Event location unknownUnidentified AI medical scribe

Reported by ABC News (Australia): an AI scribe used at a urology appointment inserted a false claim that the patient took psychedelic mushrooms into her record; the error reached her GP in a post-operative letter and was corrected only after she complained

A patient who consented to having her first urology appointment transcribed by an artificial-intelligence scribe discovered, after her kidney-stone surgery in March 2026, that the post-operative letter her specialist sent to her GP stated she micro-dosed psychedelic mushrooms and that this could explain earlier bleeding around the kidneys. She says she has never taken mushrooms. She was receiving workers' compensation and feared that any mention of illegal drugs on her medical record could affect her case. After she complained, the urologist sent a letter of apology saying the practice takes documentation accuracy seriously, that she could not determine how the claim came to be included but that it appeared to be an error during the 'dictation or transcription process', that the correspondence had been corrected and that she would review how AI was used in her practice. The doctor did not answer ABC's questions about what changes had been made. Australia's practitioner regulator AHPRA told ABC that clinicians must check all AI-scribe output; the patient says it was clear her doctor had not. The account is a single ABC News report (14 August 2026) based on the patient's interview and the letters she received; the scribe product and the clinic's location are not named.

Contextual tracker case Low reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 20/09/2026

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.