180 incidents on record · 2026 Headlights Incident reports by Ellie Harris · Melbourne
10 new this week Library last updated 30 August 2026
← The incident library
HD-INC-147
Consumer AI · United States · 2021 · Harmful web content surfaced as advice

A child asked Alexa for a challenge, and it suggested touching a coin to a live plug

By Ellie Harris · Filed Reported December 2021

Alleged: Amazon (Alexa) developed or deployed the AI system implicated in this incident. Details are drawn from public reports; parties are presumed innocent of any wrongdoing not established by an official finding.

A child asked Alexa for a challenge, and it suggested touching a coin to a live plug

What happened

It was reported that in December 2021 a 10-year-old, at home with her mother, asked Amazon’s Alexa for a challenge to do. Reporting indicates Alexa came back with one it had found on the web, the so-called outlet challenge, and suggested plugging a phone charger about half way into a wall socket and touching a coin to the exposed pins, which can cause an electric shock, sparks or a fire. Her mother, Kristin Livdahl, was in the room and stopped it immediately, and her daughter did not try the challenge.

Livdahl shared what had happened and the story quickly attracted attention. Amazon said it took swift action to fix the response once it became aware, and that Alexa was designed to provide accurate and helpful information. Reporting linked Alexa’s instructions to an article on a website called Our Community Now, and somewhere between finding that information on the web and reading it aloud to a child, there was no check that asked a very basic question: could this hurt someone?

What an auditable version would have shown

For an assistant like Alexa, you would want to know where an answer came from and what happened to it before it was spoken. In this case, there should have been a record showing that a request for a challenge, from what appeared to be a child, had been checked for physical danger, and that a suggestion involving a live power socket had then been blocked or replaced with something safe. That record would also tell Amazon whether its safety controls were catching dangerous suggestions before they reached people, rather than finding out after a parent reported one.

Where the gap was

Alexa could find the challenge. What it did not do was recognise that repeating it as a suggestion could be dangerous. The information moved from a web page to a child without a safety check in between, and there was no stronger limit because the person asking appeared to be young. Finding an answer and deciding whether it is safe to give someone that answer are two different jobs.

What governance should have looked like

An assistant used by children needs a firm limit around suggestions that could cause physical harm, regardless of what it finds online. A ConstraintGate is designed to stop that kind of output before it reaches the user, so a dare involving a live socket, a poison or a weapon is caught rather than repeated as a suggestion, with extra care when the user may be a child. A ConductRecord would preserve what was asked, what information was found and what Alexa eventually said, which gives the company something concrete to investigate when a harmful response gets through, and a way to understand exactly where the safety check failed.

The reference implementation of ConstraintGate and ConductRecord is open source. It lives at github.com/saffronandindia/headlights-oss, Apache 2.0 licensed, free for any company to install. The repository is public now.

Sources

The mailing list

Fresh incident reports every week. One email to match.

We add new incidents to the library regularly, and send a single short email each week with what's new. The library stays free and open; this is just how you keep up with it.

No tracking. Unsubscribe in one click.

The record

An auditable system would have produced a signed, tamper-evident record the moment this happened: what the system did, the version that did it, the basis it acted on, and the action taken, and Amazon (Alexa) could have produced it on demand.

This is the record the system as deployed did not produce in a signed, auditable form.

What this teaches
Capture what happened when it happens
What the system did, the version that did it, the basis it acted on, and the action taken, recorded at the moment, not reconstructed after.
Sign it, so no one has to trust the record-keeper
A tamper-evident entry. Edit it later and the signature breaks. The record does not ask for the benefit of the doubt.
Make it verifiable by anyone
A court, a regulator, a customer's lawyer can check the record themselves, without taking the company, or us, at our word.

Headlights summarises publicly reported AI incidents. All summaries are independently written, attributed to their original sources, and intended for research and educational purposes. Allegations are identified as such until established through official findings.

This report is based on the sources listed above and reflects information available at the time of review; later developments may not be captured. Where a person is described as charged with or alleged to have done something, that allegation is unproven unless a conviction or a court or regulatory finding is stated. Headlights publishes journalism and commentary, not legal advice.

Want to write back?

Direct to my inbox.

ellie@useheadlights.com →