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
4
Countries with reported events
3
Located 3 of 4 cases · 1 unknown
Languages in checked sources
2
Recorded for 4 of 4 cases
4Core concern
AI communicated, acted for, depicted or impersonated 3Contextual 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.

1cases with a recorded lawsuit outcome 4cases with a recorded regulatory response 2cases involving minors

Response counts currently use each case’s principal recorded outcome. Further proceedings may be described in its account.

When events happened

1 case 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 20251 2026
Reported severity MediumLow
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

4 of 707 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Sept 2026PakistanClaude (reported)

Karachi, Pakistan: teenager detained and released after Claude flagged his fiction-writing queries and the report reached the FBI, officials say

A teenager in Karachi was detained by Pakistan's National Cyber Crime Investigation Agency (NCCIA) and later released after his questions to an AI chatbot about how a character in a crime story could be killed were flagged, according to officials quoted by ARY News (29 September 2026) and the NCCIA as cited by ProPakistani (2 October 2026). ProPakistani reports that, according to the NCCIA, the platform's safety system flagged the queries on 4 September and the information was reportedly shared with the US FBI, which passed it to Pakistani authorities; ARY reports that the NCCIA carried out a raid and detained him. Bloom Pakistan, relaying The News, names the chatbot as Anthropic's Claude and reports that Anthropic reported the activity to the FBI. Officials said he told investigators he was writing a fictional crime story, and he was released after questioning; Bloom, relaying The News, says investigators found no grounds for prosecution but remained concerned.

Core + contextual relations Medium reported severity Involving minors Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 3 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 14/10/2026

Jun 2025 to Jul 2025Event location unknownUnidentified voice-cloning tool

State Department cable says an impostor used AI voice and text messages to pose as Secretary of State Marco Rubio to foreign ministers and US officials

A State Department cable dated 3 July 2025, sent to all US embassies and consulates and reported by The Washington Post, AP and The Guardian, said an impostor posing as Secretary of State Marco Rubio had contacted at least five senior officials, including three foreign ministers and a US governor, by text, Signal and voicemail, with the aim of gaining access to information or accounts. According to AP, two senior officials and the cable described the attempts as using technology driven by artificial intelligence; the Guardian reports that the messages mimicked Rubio's voice and writing style. The department said it was investigating and advised all employees and foreign governments. One official told AP the attempts had been unsuccessful; the technical basis for the AI description was not disclosed.

Core concern Low reported severity Investigation Opened

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 14/10/2026

23 Dec 2025 to 28 Apr 2026United StatesUnidentified AI drafting tool

Former federal prosecutor in North Carolina publicly reprimanded after admitting that a brief with fabricated quotations was drafted with AI; he lost his post

In December 2025 an Assistant U.S. Attorney in the Eastern District of North Carolina filed a response brief for the Department of Defense in a self-represented veteran's lawsuit over health-insurance coverage. The plaintiff identified fabricated quotations and misdescribed case holdings in it. The attorney first attributed the errors to an unfinalized draft filed by mistake. On 2 March 2026 Magistrate Judge Robert T. Numbers II ordered him to show cause why he should not be sanctioned. At the 10 March hearing the attorney, Rudy Renfer, said under oath that he had accidentally overwritten his draft, panicked and used artificial intelligence to draft the brief, and had not verified the cases it cited; he said he had resigned after 17 years in the office, and Courthouse News reported he was terminated the next day. On 28 April 2026 the court issued a public reprimand instead of a fine, writing that his reputation was in tatters and that his job loss already exceeded the usual fines.

Core concern Medium reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 5 sources, 4 underlying accounts · Added 09/10/2026

Event date unknownEstoniaUnidentified AI writing tool

Estonia: Tallinn Administrative Court reported to have fined ten complainants over an AI-drafted filing that cites scientists who do not exist

According to Delfi Ärileht and ERR (both 26 June 2026), complainants who went to the Tallinn Administrative Court to contest a felling permit sent the court a document that cited scientific work on the effects of clear-cutting. The court found that the Estonian scientists named in the references do not exist and that the studies could not be found. It asked how the document had been produced, gave the complainants the chance to submit the cited works, and warned of a fine for attempting to mislead the court. The complainants replied that using AI is not forbidden and that they had not meant to mislead the court. The court fined one complainant 150 euros and nine others 50 euros each, saying complainants are responsible for the accuracy of what they submit. Delfi Ärileht reports that the Tallinn Circuit Court agreed and that the Supreme Court declined the case that week, so the fines are in force. No report names the tool or says which complainant used it.

Core concern Low reported severity Regulatory Action

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution alleged · 2 sources, 1 underlying account · Added 05/10/2026

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: 16/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.