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

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

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.

1 2022
Reported severity Low
More filters: AI relation, use, setting, sources and responses
Clear filters

2 of 628 published cases

Export JSONExport CSV
Event date unknownEvent location unknownUnited Airlines chatbot

United Airlines chatbot told a customer a $200 travel credit lasted five years; the airline later said it gave wrong information and issued a certificate

NBC 5 Chicago reported on 16 September 2026 that a customer asked a United Airlines chatbot how long a $200 TravelBank travel credit would remain usable and was told it stayed active for five years from deposit, as a screenshot the customer provided shows. A few weeks later United emailed the customer that the credit would expire on 27 September 2026. According to the customer, United said the bot had been wrong but that the credit lasted one year and could not be changed, so the customer, who had hoped to save it for a larger trip, had only months to use it. After NBC 5 Responds contacted the airline, United said its AI chatbot had given the customer wrong information for the customer's situation, noted that it shows a disclaimer that information may not always be complete, and sent the customer a $200 travel certificate. The report does not say when the chatbot exchange took place.

Core concern Low reported severity Media Coverage

AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source · Added 12/10/2026

11 Nov 2022 to 16 Nov 2022CanadaAir Canada chatbot

Air Canada website chatbot wrongly told a bereaved passenger a fare reduction could be claimed after travel; BC tribunal ordered the airline to pay damages

On 11 November 2022, after a grandparent died in Ontario, a passenger asked the support chatbot on Air Canada's website about bereavement fares. The chatbot's response, in a screenshot later filed in evidence, said a ticket could be submitted for a reduced bereavement rate within 90 days of issue, including after travel, while the airline's bereavement webpage said the policy did not apply after travel was completed. Relying on that answer, the passenger bought full-fare one-way tickets between Vancouver and Toronto for $794.98 and $845.38 and applied for the reduction on 17 November. In February 2023 an Air Canada representative admitted the chatbot had provided misleading words. On 14 February 2024 the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal found negligent misrepresentation, rejected the airline's argument that it could not be held liable for its chatbot, found it had not taken reasonable care to ensure the chatbot was accurate, and ordered it to pay $812.02, including $650.88 in damages.

Core concern Low reported severity

AI involvement reported · Causal attribution established · 4 sources, 2 underlying accounts · Added 12/10/2026

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: 12/10/2026. Dataset available under CC BY 4.0.