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
5
Countries with reported events
5
Located 5 of 5 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
4
Recorded for 5 of 5 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 HighMediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

5 of 868 published cases

Sept 2026IndiaUnidentified voice-cloning tool

Phagwara, Punjab: after unrest at Lovely Professional University, a video of the local Superintendent of Police circulates with an AI-made voice saying a relative of the Union Home Minister was behind the violence; Punjab Police call it fake (CyberPeace dates a Kapurthala Police post to 29 September 2026) and a fact-checker finds the original footage

India TV reported on 30 September 2026 that, after violence at Lovely Professional University in Punjab, a video of Phagwara's Superintendent of Police went viral in which the officer's voice claims that a relative of the Union Home Minister was behind the violence and that a police team had gone to Delhi to find him. Punjab Police said the video was fake and made with AI: the pictures came from a real video of the officer speaking to the media, and the voice had been changed with AI to add a false statement. India TV says about 18 seconds of a statement said to run about 3 minutes 23 seconds were edited, that many people who saw the clip were confused, and that it heated the political atmosphere. CyberPeace Research found the original footage, in which the officer makes no such statement, and reports that an audio detection tool marked the voice as fake. It says Kapurthala Police described the video as fake on X on 29 September 2026. Who made the clip is not reported.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources · Added 05/10/2026

26 Sept 2026 to 27 Sept 2026United StatesClaude (reported)

Bonita Springs, Lee County, Florida: a 30-year-old woman was arrested and charged with making a written threat of violence after Anthropic's human review team reported to law enforcement her messages on its AI platform saying she would 'shoot up' the Lee County Sheriff's Office, according to the arrest report

According to a Lee County Sheriff's Office arrest report, as reported by WINK News and by Guessing Headlights (on Yahoo News, citing a copy obtained by Gulf Coast News Now), a user of Anthropic's AI platform wrote on 26 September 2026 that she was going to 'shoot up' the Lee County Sheriff's Office, and the next day wrote that she had a new gun. The arrest report says the platform's safety measures flagged the messages, a human review team examined them and reported them to law enforcement. Deputies went to the 30-year-old woman's Bonita Springs home and detained her without incident; she is charged with making a written threat of violence under Florida law. The sheriff told WINK News that she later said she uses AI like a 'diary'. Anthropic had not commented on the case in either report. The charge is an allegation and the case is pending.

Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 03/10/2026

Sept 2026GermanyUnidentified image tool

Oldenburg police investigate deepfakes of children sent with threats via school email accounts, AI-made per dpa; police say a juvenile admitted the alleged acts

The Oldenburg-Stadt police inspectorate said on 22 September 2026 that in the preceding days numerous messages had been sent through one or more student accounts on the email servers of Oldenburg schools. The messages contained, among other things, deepfakes (manipulated depictions of children and young people); on an initial assessment some of these could constitute the offence of distributing child or youth sexual abuse material, and some messages contained threats of violence and calls for recipients to harm themselves. According to dpa, students and parents reported the incidents to the police, and dpa, reporting a police spokesman, describes the images as made with artificial intelligence (the written police statement calls them deepfakes, manipulated depictions, without naming AI). Investigators are examining whether unknown persons gained unauthorised access to the accounts; first digital traces were secured and the police are working with the affected schools. RND reports that the accounts were on the IServ school platform, whose provider said it had no access to the messages and believed the incident was limited to Oldenburg. The exact number of schools (the police refer to 'the affected schools', plural), messages, depicted children and recipients, are not reported. On 28 September 2026 the police said a suspect had been identified: a juvenile who, in the investigation so far, admitted the offences he is accused of. The proceedings are conducted by the Aurich public prosecutor's specialised office for violent, pornographic or otherwise youth-endangering content, and the police give no further details about the suspect to protect him.

Core concern Medium reported severity Involving minors Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 5 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 27/09/2026

Jul 2026South KoreaUnidentified image tool

Jeju: police refer a middle-school student over secretly filming teachers and making sexual deepfake composites; teachers dispute victim count and legal aid

Jeju Dongbu police announced on 23 September 2026 that a student at a middle school on Jeju had been referred to prosecutors without detention on 17 September for violating the Sexual Violence Punishment Act (filming with a camera or similar device). The student's phone was voluntarily submitted by his guardians and forensically examined; the examination found footage relating to some teachers and some sexual composites, and the student admitted the conduct. News1 reported that the student was booked for filming a teacher's body with his phone during a school field trip around mid-July 2026, that the offending had continued for several months with multiple victims, and that police found no indication the composites had been distributed. Police told Seoul Shinmun there were more victim teachers than the one first reported but withheld the number to avoid secondary harm, and that no student at the school was a victim; the Jeju teachers' union questioned whether the full scope of harm had been established. According to the union, two months on the victim teachers were receiving hospital treatment and counselling while teaching daily, gave police statements on 14 September without a lawyer, attended the regional teachers' rights protection committee on 17 September without institutional support, wrote the criminal complaint themselves, and were offered 3.3 million won in legal fees for all of them together, payable after the case ends; two requests to meet the superintendent were not accepted. On 29 September one of the victim teachers gave a press interview at the Jeju Teachers' Union office. She said that early in the investigation she had seen on the student's phone material showing other teachers and current students, had made a list of the people and types of harm, and that the material shown to her at the police victim examination was considerably less than what she had seen; Yonhap-chain outlets quote her as saying the students she recognised numbered 10 to 20 and that a graduate had suffered worse deepfakes. She said investigators asked the school only to identify the perpetrator and never requested material to identify the students in the footage, and that the school sent parents a letter premised on there being no student victims. Police replied that phone forensics had been thorough, that every act beyond social norms had been identified and proven, and that one student victim had been confirmed, a student at a different school. The teachers were notified on 22 September that the case had gone to the prosecution and on 24 September that it had been sent to the court's juvenile division as a juvenile protection case, before they had submitted further evidence and a victim opinion. The teacher said the original complaint had also asked police to examine whether physical contact in 2025 was forcible molestation and whether repeated approaching and waiting in 2026 was stalking, and Halla Ilbo reports that such conduct is said to date from 2025. Yonhap-chain reports describe the charged victims as five teachers. The same day the education office briefed on legal-aid rules (up to 6.6 million won per instance when a teacher is sued, 3.3 million won per case when a teacher files a complaint; office lawyers cannot act as a teacher's private counsel), said it had linked the teachers to the national Digital Sexual Crime Victim Support Center, announced an integrated support system through a hotline, and its section head said the office was sorry that early support had not been felt. The KTU Jeju branch (28 September) and the Jeju Teachers' Union (14 and 29 September) demand a victim-support system, per-teacher legal fees paid in advance and a dedicated support team. On 6 October 2026 Seogwipo Broadcasting reported, citing people in education and a tipster, that the education authority had finally rejected the victim teachers' application for lawyer fees for an additional criminal complaint, saying in a written opinion that with a police investigation already under way a further complaint could hardly stop or prevent the infringement of their teaching, so the support requirements were not met; critics contrast this with full legal-cost support in earlier sexual-offence cases.

Core concern High reported severity Criminal Charges

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 12 sources, 7 underlying accounts · Added 23/09/2026

2 Jun 2026 to 4 Jun 2026United KingdomGrok

Grok falsely named former officer Christi Hill as an arresting officer in the Henry Nowak case; she is in hiding after threats

In early June 2026, social media posts and the AI chatbot Grok falsely identified former Hampshire police constable Christi Hill as one of the 'primary officers shown' in bodycam footage of the December 2025 arrest of Henry Nowak, who died after being stabbed. Hill had left the force in April 2024 — more than a year before the murder — and says the misidentification stems from a national police bravery award photo being misattributed. After 'endless threats' and 'threats of violence' she is hiding in a safe house. BBC Verify separately obtained evidence that serving officer Tristan Parsons, also wrongly accused online, was not in the country at the time; the Home Secretary said a misidentified male officer had to move out of his home. Hampshire Constabulary confirmed an unrelated officer was misidentified and received death threats.

Contextual tracker case High reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources · Added 15/09/2026

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: 23/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.