An airline is held to its chatbot’s answer
An airline’s website chatbot described a refund option the airline did not offer, and a tribunal held the airline to it.
- When
- Conversation in November 2022; decision on 14 February 2024
- Who
- Air Canada and a customer, Jake Moffatt
- Decision
- Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149, Tribunal Member Christopher C. Rivers
- Action
- The chatbot told a customer, in the airline’s name, what the airline would do. The tribunal treated the statement as the airline’s own representation.
- Outcome
- Harm. Customer misled; airline liable for negligent misrepresentation. Award: CA$650.88 in damages, CA$36.14 in interest, and CA$125 in fees, CA$812.02 in total
What happened
After a death in his family, Jake Moffatt asked Air Canada’s website chatbot about bereavement fares. It told him he could buy a regular ticket and apply for the reduced fare afterward, within 90 days of purchase. Air Canada’s policy did not allow bereavement fares to be claimed after travel, and the airline refused his request.
Before the tribunal, Air Canada argued that it could not be held liable for information provided by its agents, servants, or representatives, including a chatbot. The tribunal said that this was, in effect, treating the chatbot as a separate legal entity responsible for its own actions, and rejected the argument. It found the airline responsible for all the information on its website and liable for negligent misrepresentation.
What allowed the action to take effect
The tribunal found that Air Canada “did not take reasonable care to ensure its chatbot was accurate.” The chatbot’s answer reached the customer as written. It linked to the airline’s policy page, which said otherwise, but the tribunal held that a customer should not have to check one part of a website against another.
An illustrative control
Assumptions. Statements that commit the organization, such as those about eligibility, refunds, prices, and terms, are listed in the register as actions with external effects. The chatbot’s replies on those subjects pass through an external control layer, a check that sits outside the chatbot, before the customer sees them.
rule: policy-statements
applies to: statement.refund, statement.eligibility, statement.fare_rules
permit: approved policy text, quoted with its version
deny: anything else on these subjects
instead: send the approved text and offer an agent
- action
- statement.eligibility (bereavement fare, after purchase)
- policy
- customer-statements v2, rule policy-statements
- evidence
- conflicts with the bereavement travel policy in force
- decision
- Deny
- effect
- approved policy text sent; offer to connect to an agent
Under these assumptions, the wrong answer does not reach the customer, who instead receives the approved policy text, quoted with its version, and the option of speaking to a person.
Limits of this control
Deciding which statements commit the organization takes effort, and some will be treated as ordinary conversation and pass unchecked. Because the layer checks statements against the policy, it cannot correct a policy that is itself wrong or unclear. It controls only what reaches the customer and does not affect what the model generates.
Controls that apply
- P4 Reviewable policy: the approved text is the rule.
- P9 Declared scope and clause C-1: statements that commit the organization belong in the register.
- The customer finances case study applies the same rule to fee refunds.
Sources
Facts come from the sources listed. To correct a fact, see how to send a correction.