this post was submitted on 15 Feb 2024
268 points (98.6% liked)

Canada

7188 readers
254 users here now

What's going on Canada?

Communities

🍁 Meta

πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories

πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities

πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer

πŸ’» Universities

πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping

πŸ—£οΈ Politics

🍁 Social and Culture

Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca

founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
[email protected]
268
Air Canada's chatbot gave a B.C. man the wrong information. Now, the airline has to pay for the mistake (bc.ctvnews.ca)
submitted 8 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]
43 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

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.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] [email protected] 43 points 8 months ago (2 children)

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

[–] [email protected] 40 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 8 points 8 months ago (1 children)

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.

[–] [email protected] 4 points 8 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.

[–] [email protected] 16 points 8 months ago

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