Jake Moffatt was booking a flight to Toronto and asked the bot about the airline’s bereavement rates – reduced fares provided in the event someone needs to travel due to the death of an immediate family member.

Moffatt said he was told that these fares could be claimed retroactively by completing a refund application within 90 days of the date the ticket was issued, and submitted a screenshot of his conversation with the bot as evidence supporting this claim.

The airline refused the refund because it said its policy was that bereavement fare could not, in fact, be claimed retroactively.

Air Canada argued that it could not be held liable for information provided by the bot.

  • @SamuelRJankis@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    435 months ago

    It’s amazing that a 7 billion dollar company goes to court to fight someone for $800. Aside from obviously being in the wrong.

    …awarding $650.88 in damages for negligent misrepresentation.

    $36.14 in pre-judgment interest and $125 in fees

    • @nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      40
      edit-2
      5 months ago

      They’re not fighting for the $800. They’re fighting for the right to continue to use their shitty chatbot to reduce their support staff costs while not being liable for any bullshit it tells people.

      There will be cases like this in every jurisdiction.

      • @CanadianCorhen@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        85 months ago

        Exactly.

        If the court hand found any other way, then any time the chatbot makes a mistake, they just wash their hands of it and let the consumer takes the hit.

        This means they are responsible for what the chatbot says, and is at least moderately sane.

        • @nova_ad_vitum@lemmy.ca
          link
          fedilink
          45 months ago

          If the court hand found any other way, then any time the chatbot makes a mistake, they just wash their hands of it and let the consumer takes the hit.

          It would have been just a matter of time the chatbot started making “mistakes” that financially benefitted the company more and more.

          This means they are responsible for what the chatbot says, and is at least moderately sane.

          Does this decision carry any precedent? It was a tribunal, not a court.

    • @ahal@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      165 months ago

      Nothing to do with the money and everything to do with the precedent. Glad it didn’t work out for them.