NOPE · AI and people

AI incidents

Name: AI incidents
Creator: NOPE
License: https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

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: 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 3Contextual 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 all 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 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 2026

Reported severity Low

Search cases Consequence Event country

More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses

AI-to-person relation Setting Whose AI use Source type inspected AI system Reported severity Response / population Legacy evidence assessment

Event year Sort by Clear filters

1 of 404 published cases

Export JSON Export CSV

27 Jan 2026United KingdomFacewatch facial recognition

London: shopper told to leave a Sainsbury's store after a Facewatch facial recognition alert, which Sainsbury's says concerned a different person

A shopper at the Sainsbury's store in Elephant and Castle, London, told PA that staff approached the shopper on 27 January, asked the shopper to leave and took the shopping. The BBC and LBC report that staff pointed to a sign about the store's Facewatch facial recognition system and told the shopper to contact Facewatch. Sainsbury's said the system had flagged a different person. Sainsbury's and Facewatch said a staff member approached the wrong customer, and Facewatch said it held no alert or record for the shopper. To confirm this, the shopper sent Facewatch a passport copy and a photo. Sainsbury's apologised, offered a 75 pound voucher and said store management would receive additional training. The shopper reports embarrassment and feeling like a criminal. Both companies attribute the error to store staff.

AI relation unknown Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution disputed · 6 sources, 1 underlying account · 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.