Air Canada has been ordered to compensate a man when the Air Canada chatbot misled him over a bereavement fare. It is an interesting case, though I found Air Canada’s legal reasoning to border on absurd.
Air Canada Held Liable For Chatbot Misinformation
A Vancouver man named Jake Moffatt was given the bad news that his grandmother died, prompting him to immediately check on air tickets to Toronto to attend the funeral.
He searched for bereavement fares and the chatbot, a computer program designed to simulate conversation with human users and a tool many airlines now use in a bid to reduce call center inquiries, provided the following info:
“If you need to travel immediately or have already travelled and would like to submit your ticket for a reduced bereavement rate, kindly do so within 90 days of the date your ticket was issued by completing our Ticket Refund Application form.”
On that basis, Moffatt booked his ticket, attendee the funeral, then later submitted a refund request.
Only Air Canada denied the refund. It said the chatbot was wrong and if he had visited the bereavement fare page on its website, he would have known that Air Canada does not apply bereavement discounts after travel is completed.
In his filing, the man explained:
“An Air Canada representative responded and admitted the chatbot had provided ‘misleading words.’ The representative pointed out the chatbot’s link to the bereavement travel webpage and said Air Canada had noted the issue so it could update the chatbot.”
But Air Canada disagreed. Instead, it argued the tool was “a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions” and that Air Canada is not responsible for misinformation provided by “agents, servants, or representatives, including a chatbot.”
Wow…
The commissioner sitting as judge was just as incredulous as I was…
“This is a remarkable submission. While a chatbot has an interactive component, it is still just a part of Air Canada’s website. It should be obvious to Air Canada that it is responsible for all the information on its website. It makes no difference whether the information comes from a static page or a chatbot.”
Yes, I think most people see it this way. I certainly do.
The man was awarded 812CAD (representing the difference between his price and the standard bereavement fare).
Important Case. But No Binding Precedent
This was settled in what is essentially small claims court (Civil Resolution Tribunal) so the decision sets no precedent. That said, were this to work its way up the court system, I cannot see any other outcome.
The idea that its chatbot is “a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions” is a legal charade about as bogus as those signs in the grocery store parking lots saying they are not responsible for theft or damage to your car.
The chatbot is part and parcel of the way in which Air Canada communicates with customers and sells airline tickets. Yes, it is the product of a third party software developer, but that does not consumers reasonably see the chatbot as an extension of Air Canada itself.
CONCLUSION
A man has been awarded 812CAD after an Air Canada chatbot suggested he could secure a bereavement fare by booking a ticket and later submitting a refund request.
Perhaps the most frustrating thing is why it had to go all the way to court in the first place. Is there really no customer service agent with the common sense (or the authority) to make something like this right?
This case was decided correctly, but if you do need a bereavement fare, I recommend you pick up the phone and call the airline first…not after you book. That way, you do not have to front more money than necessary.
Hat Tip: SINJim
Air Canada’s MO seems to be “ignore pesky things like the ‘law’ until we lose in court.” It’s probably not a bad idea, and they probably get away with a lot, but it certainly isn’t ethical.
I have some experience with that, as you know. 😉
On the note of Air Canada, I’d be interested to see if you have any thoughts on the Air Canada vs Localhost (seats.aero) case.
Aeroplan’s latest filing mentioned that Star Alliance would start limiting their search results.
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67896748/air-canada-v-localhost-llc/
Air Canada definitely spent more than 812CAD in lawyers. That’s just how corporate works.
Bereavement fares are so 1980’s, not sure why they are even offered anymore. You want to go to a funeral, pay the listed rates.
I think these dates place people dignity on the celebration of life.
Hopefully they are not abused.
There is no such thing as a bereavement fare, a cheaper fare with Air Canada. The last time I needed one, many years ago, the bereavement fare was just a last-minute fare booking and for a higher price. Unless anyone else had a different experience.
….the consumer protection laws are not too strict in Canada and that applies to any company that you dispute your money, not just with Air Canada.
For quite some time I have found bereavement fares to be a rip-off and worse than just booking the same flights as part of a vacation package deal booked online in conjunction with cash back portal use.
A customer’s detrimental reliance upon the misrepresentations of a human agent should be as legally actionable as it is with regard to misrepresentations from chatbots or published material in any form.
This is classic Air Canada. I had a similar experience through COVID – lots of legal sounding nonsense from agents when they canceled flights but refused to refund tickets. E.g. US legal system cannot force AC to refund tickets since it’s a Canadian airline despite flights originating or ending in the US and paid in USD on AC’s US website booked from a US address.
I’m glad that the DOT finally stepped in and put an end to that scam.
I had a few friends caught up in the same thing. They eventually got their money back, but it took a long time.
I can’t help but wonder how much long term damage was done to their brand for US customers with that policy.
In this instance it’s Air Canada who have been caught, I don’t doubt there could be a long list of competitors who would have behaved just as badly and attempted to get out of the consequences of their cost cutting approach to customer service. Hopefully this case will create a precendent that will be applied in other jurisdictions because the only sure thing is that cases like this will increase.