In Ontario, after his grandmother died a few years ago, British Columbia resident Jake Moffatt visited Air Canada’s website to book a flight for the funeral. He received support from a chatbot, which told him the airline offered reduced rates for passengers booking last-minute travel due to tragedies.
For the next day flight, Moffatt bought a nearly $600 ticket after the chatbot said that if he applied within 90 days, he would get some of his money back under the airline’s bereavement policy according to a recent civil-resolutions tribunal decision.
But when Moffatt later tried to get the discount, he realized that the chatbot had been wrong. Air Canada only gives bereavement fees if the request has been submitted before a flight. The airline later argued the chatbot was a separate legal entity responsible for its actions.
Moffatt filed a claim with the Canadian tribunal, which ruled that Air Canada owed Moffatt more than $600 in damages and tribunal fees after failing to provide reasonable care.
As companies have added artificial intelligence-powered chatbots to their websites in hopes of providing faster service, the Air Canada dispute sheds light on issues linked with the growing technology and how courts could approach questions of accountability. The Canadian tribunal in this case came down on the side of the customer, ruling that Air Canada did not ensure its chatbot was correct.
Though a chatbot has an interactive component, it is still just a part of Air Canada’s website, says tribunal member Christopher Rivers. It should be noticeable to Air Canada that it is answerable for all the information on its website. It makes no difference whether the information comes from a chatbot or a static page.
In a statement, an Air Canada spokesperson said to The Washington Post that the airline will obey the tribunal’s decision.
Moffatt first visited Air Canada’s website on Nov. 11, 2022 — the day his grandmother died, according to the tribunal. There, he asked the chatbot about bereavement fares.
If you have already traveled or need to travel immediately and would like to submit your ticket for a low bereavement rate, kindly do so within 90 days of the date your ticket was purchased by filling out our Ticket Refund Application form, the chatbot replied, according to the tribunal’s decision.
The chatbot’s responses were associated with the airline’s webpage that detailed its bereavement travel policy. The webpage states that the airline prohibits refunds for travel that has already happened.
Moffatt, depending on the chatbot’s instructions, booked a one-way ticket for about $590 from Vancouver to Toronto, the decision said. A couple of days later, he paid around $627 for a return flight.
On Nov. 17, 2022, Moffatt demanded a refund through the airline’s application form. He gave his grandmother’s death certificate and emailed Air Canada employees for the next three months, the decision said.
In February 2023, an Air Canada employee told Moffatt that the chatbot had lied to him, the decision said. Moffatt continued to exchange emails with employees but didn’t get a refund, the decision said, prompting him to file a claim.
Moffatt said he wouldn’t have purchased the tickets if he knew he would have to pay the full amount, according to the decision. Moffatt believed he should have paid about $564 total, the decision said, but he ended up paying around $1,209.
Air Canada said that the chatbot is a separate legal entity, and the airline shouldn’t be responsible for the information the chatbot provides, according to the tribunal’s decision. Air Canada also contended that Moffatt could have found the airline’s bereavement policy by further scanning its website, the decision said.
But Rivers ruled that those claims were unreasonable. Rivers determined that Moffatt paid about $483 more than he should have. He demanded that Air Canada pay Moffatt that fee in addition to roughly $93 in tribunal fees and $26.80 in prejudgment interest.
Moffatt says, and I accept, that they relied upon the chatbot to provide exact information. I find that was reasonable in the circumstances, Rivers wrote in the ruling that there is no reason why Mr. Moffatt should know that one section of Air Canada’s webpage is correct, and another is not.
