canadiancow

https://bc.ctvnews.ca/air-canada-s-c...take-1.6769454

My favorite quote: There is no reason why Mr. Moffatt should know that one section of Air Canada’s webpage is accurate, and another is not.

Bartolo

This priceless. Thanks for sharing.

My recollection from the one time I used a bereavement fare was they required a copy of the death certificate. Not available prior to travel since the funeral was within 24 hrs of death.

flyingcrooked

That is a remarkable story. One has to wonder how clueless and morally bankrupt an organization is to spend months arguing with this guy, rather than just acknowledging the obvious error on its part and keeping its word to him. I wonder if the good people working for AC get worn down by this, like doesn’t the human being who sent him all the “go pound sand” emails not see the guy is right and despair at having to perform the grim task of gaslighting him for months?

billdokes

This one is pretty good too:

​​​​​​In effect, Air Canada suggests the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions.

It's not us, it's our chatbot, you should be suing it!

Priceless!

rankourabu

Air Canada suggests the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions

He should've sued the bot not AC. Clearly.

TheCanuckian

Crazy. I wish the judge had added a couple of 0s to the judgment just to punish AC for being so embarrassingly obstinate.

RatherBeInYOW

Yet again AC lawyers are reaching conclusions the technology doesn't support, and punishing customers for it. Of course the chatbot some third party tool ("separate legal entity") that AC buys, but it is trained on text that AC provides to that chatbot company. Probably some out of date process stuff that lead it to provide incorrect information. I can't imagine sitting there with a straight face and claiming that this was not ACs responsibility. Brutal.

RangerNS

I have no idea what a "Civil Resolution Tribunal" is, but it sounds like small claims court. Here, it would be an adjudicator, not a judge. And not allowed to make punitive judgements.

YOWgary

It's the Disney approach - fight everything, never admit fault - and I agree that it's reprehensible.

One wonders how much they spent trying to avoid paying Mr. Moffatt $650.

On the other hand, if AC wants to stick to the idea that customers are stuck with whatever its chatbots say, I'm sure we can find the airfare equivalent of a $1 truck sooner or later...

eqeqeqx

I'm guessing AC will now be suing the bot to get the money they were forced to pay back.

Out of my Element

Considering the cost to AC, who thinks there is ANY chance they will update the 'Bot? I expect they have made tens of thousands of dollars (even CAD can add up) from folks who accepted the "fooled ya!" reply. And will continue to do so.

Bohemian1

Air Canada was trying to play a clever game here.

Effectively, they asserted that the chatbot was a acting as an Agent and that Agent lacked authority. In basic contract law, an agent who purports to make a contract on behalf of a principal, but who in fact has no authority to do so, is liable to the other party (in this case Mr. Moffat).

For a variety of reasons, the BC CRT adjudicator was having none of that and said that Air Canada had not exercised reasonable care to ensure the information provided by the chatbot was accurate, despite also serving up a link to the actual policy. Sloppiness and laziness on AC's part, which will no doubt be mitigated by some kind of an opt-in disclaimer pop-up in the future. It's interesting that this laziness and sloppiness extended to the hearing itself, as noted by this gem in section 32 of the order:

But expect to see more crap just like this in the future as more and more entities take the easy way out and abdicate responsibility to ai-based tools for 'customer service'.

zappy312

I'm sorry, I did not understand your message. Please try rephrasing your message. Short sentences work best while I'm still learning.

Adam Smith

Perhaps AC had the chatbot handle the fillings for the case...

bigdog2

A while ago I saw on X some screenshots of an AI chatbot for a car dealership "agreeing" to sell a new vehicle for $1,000 and commenters discussing agent-contract-principal of how a judge would interpret it. This one is an interesting case.