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
2
Countries with reported events
1
Located 2 of 2 cases · 0 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 2 of 2 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 Medium
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 1096 published cases

Jul 2025IndiaPoshan Tracker face recognition

India: pregnant women and new mothers report being cut off from take-home rations when the Poshan Tracker app's face match failed

From 1 July 2025 India's Ministry of Women and Child Development made a facial recognition check in the government's Poshan Tracker app mandatory before pregnant women and nursing mothers receive take-home rations under the Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) scheme; the app compares the woman's live face with her Aadhaar identity photograph. In July 2025 Decode reported from Delhi that a woman eight months pregnant returned to her Anganwadi centre for a third day trying to get the app to recognise her, and a worker said she gave food to a new mother the app would not recognise and recorded it by hand. In August 2025 the Karnataka Anganwadi workers' union told The South First that the faces of pregnant and nursing mothers change so they no longer match their registration images, and that some mothers leave without their rations. In March 2026 a Decode investigation supported by the Pulitzer Center reported that a mother in Jharkhand was cut off from supplementary nutrition ten weeks after giving birth because the software could not match her face to a photograph taken eight years earlier, that a pregnant woman in Bihar who was anaemic went four months without rations because the system could not match her to an older Aadhaar photograph, that one Bihar centre had removed three pregnant women and five nursing mothers whose faces no longer matched, and that a Jharkhand worker was told to remove at least four children whose eligibility depended on their mothers' failed face matches. Decode also reports failures earlier in the process, when women cannot receive a one-time password on an Aadhaar-linked phone. Government figures cited by Decode show 52.7% of eligible beneficiaries had received rations through facial recognition by 31 December 2025. A researcher who analysed the app for Decode found Google's ML Kit face-detection library in it; Google said ML Kit cannot recognise individuals, and the government has not disclosed who built the matching system. After workers' protests, a February 2026 app update let workers upload other identity documents for pregnant and nursing women, subject to a supervisor's approval. Decode reports the Bihar woman later gave birth to a healthy baby, while her name remained missing from the system.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Internal Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 4 sources · Added 02/11/2026

2021IndiaSamagra Vedika

Al Jazeera investigation says Telangana's Samagra Vedika system wrongly matched poor families to car owners, and officials denied them food subsidy cards

An Al Jazeera investigation published on 24 January 2024, produced with The Reporters' Collective and the Pulitzer Center's AI Accountability Network, reports that Samagra Vedika, a system the Telangana government uses to consolidate residents' data and check welfare eligibility, wrongly tagged poor families in Hyderabad as owning cars, and that officials relied on those tags to deny them food security cards (subsidised rice). Al Jazeera says the system uses machine learning and entity resolution to match people across databases, and that since 2016 officials have been mandated to check whether the system approved an applicant before deciding. In one case it reports that the system mistook a widow's late husband, a rickshaw puller, for a car owner with a similar name; her renewal application was rejected in 2021 for possessing a four-wheeler. After she traced the vehicle's real owner, officials agreed there had been an algorithmic error but said her family income exceeded the limit, which Al Jazeera says was not the case; she had been without the subsidised rations for more than seven years. A second family, whose husband cannot drive, was rejected in 2021 for possessing a four-wheeler; in November 2023 the High Court of Telangana said the petitioner is eligible whenever new cards are issued. The government says the technology is highly precise and that wrong vehicle or house tags occur in under five per cent of cases and have mostly been corrected.

Contextual tracker case Medium reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 24/10/2026

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: 02/11/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.