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
3
Countries with reported events
2
Located 2 of 3 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
1
Recorded for 3 of 3 cases
2Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 0Contextual 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 these 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

4 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.

3 2025
Reported severity HighMedium
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

3 of 896 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Jul 2025CanadaUnidentified video tool

Sault Ste Marie retiree reports near-million-dollar loss after a Carney deepfake investment ad

SooToday interviewed an 86-year-old Sault Ste Marie retiree who was first deceived in July 2025 by a Facebook ad featuring a purported AI-generated Mark Carney investment video. The report describes nearly C$1 million lost over several months through retirement withdrawals, a mortgage and credit-card borrowing. She said she was devastated; her friend described missed bills and loss of her car. The report also says withdrawing retirement funds affected her benefit eligibility. Those later consequences are reported, without an independently inspected financial file.

Core concern High reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 1 source · Added 30/09/2026

25 Feb 2025 to 23 Apr 2025IndiaUnidentified video tool

Bengaluru woman reportedly lost Rs 3.75 crore after a Sadhguru deepfake investment pitch

Bengaluru police said a retired woman lost about Rs 3.75 crore after encountering a purported AI-generated video of Sadhguru promoting investments. The Indian Express reports that the contact and transfers took place from 25 February to 23 April 2025. According to the reported FIR, the video led to a trading platform and subsequent contact with scammers, who showed apparent profits. The woman realised the problem when withdrawal attempts prompted further payment demands. Police were attempting to freeze accounts, while warning recovery would be difficult.

Core concern High reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 30/09/2026

2025Event location unknownUnidentified legal research tool

High Court refers a solicitor to his regulator after fictitious citations from research his client says was AI-generated were put before the court

A Divisional Court judgment of 6 June 2025 ([2025] EWHC 1383 (Admin)) records that, in a commercial claim against a Qatari bank, correspondence and witness statements filed by the claimant and his solicitor relied on numerous authorities that a judicial assistant's schedule found to be fictitious or misquoted: 45 citations, 18 of which referred to cases that do not exist. The claimant's witness statement says the citations were generated using publicly available artificial intelligence tools, legal search engines and online sources. The solicitor's statement says he relied on the client's research without verifying it, that he had reported himself to the Solicitors Regulation Authority and that he had removed himself from all litigated matters. The court found a lamentable failure to check the material, accepted that the solicitor did not realise the citations were false, held that the threshold for contempt proceedings was not met, and said it would also refer him to the regulator. The judgment does not record any later disciplinary outcome.

AI relation unknown Medium reported severity

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · 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: 24/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.