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.
It’s your fucking system. You’re liable for what it says.
I got a bereavement care when my father died the night before my flight to see him. The phone agent did this without my asking for it. Humans good, chatbots bad.
Oh man, moments like this when my faith in humanity is restored. I am sorry for your loss
I got offered a bereavement fare that was higher than the Google flights posted fare, and limited to Mon-Thurs flights.
Air Canada probably spent more trying to fight this claim rather than just issuing payment when the chatbot logs were sent in
I wonder how anyone in their right mind would propose the defense “we can’t be held liable for what the chatbot we purposefully put on our website said”. Did Air Canada’s lawyers truly think this would fly?
If you don’t want to be held to AI hallucinations, don’t put an AI chatbot on your website, seems easy enough.
My organization won’t even allow auto translation widgets on our site. Instead, we refer people to using web translation services on their own, with clear language that says we’re not liable for third party mistranslations. (In multiple languages, by a company that has signed an indemnity agreement with us if their translation becomes an issue.)
It’s a bit heavy-handed, but the lawyers hold more sway than the communications folks, and I don’t disagree with the approach – you don’t want users misunderstanding what your site says, and being able to blame you for it.
Probably not, but they’re paid to try their best.
Lol… “Think this would fly” I see what you did there.
This article does not actually mention the chatbot being AI. As chatbots have been around for many years, it is possible this is just a normal non-‘AI’ chatbot that someone programmed that information with (potentially old information that had long since changed, but no one has updated).
Either way, they are liable for what it tells customers. If it is AI, well… no company should be using AI to make legally binding statements, or advertisements to customers (without human review).
At the moment, companies deploying an AI, should be doing so with AI as the product, not integrated into selling non-AI related products, or services.
You know what, you’re completely right. Thanks for pointing that out, my brain just auto-completed that detail because of how prevalent “AI” is in the news these days.
Honestly though, if it’s a more traditional chatbot that they had to program themselves, it’s all the more embarrassing for Air Canada that they were trying to weasel themselves out of this.
I am completely certain that’s the case. For them, this is more about precedent.
Surely they’re scared of more people realizing that saving these chats is important. How else will they get away with scummy practices?
Air Canada argued that it could not be held liable for information provided by the bot
Lol. Of course they’d say that. Perhaps hire people? Or would they also argue they couldn’t be held liable for their mistakes and misinformation?
They’re trying to cheap out on real human support personnel - Chat bots are clearly not a suitable replacement.
Fuck’em.
If they get the precedent they are not responsible for what the AI chat bot says, then this goes for any chat box on any site and they all become worthless. Any chat bot gets a disclaimer basically saying “this thing is a dirty lier and nothing it says matters.” People will start to call human customer service to confirm what the chat bot said and the savings in employee costs are gone.
Seems a bad long term strategy.
Seems a bad long term strategy.
It’s not a long term strategy. The person who made this decision is thinking about their quarterly or yearly bonus. By the time the problems hit, they’ve long since cashed out.
CS will be a multi modal chatbot too, just with a voice. I don’t think they want any human support at all. To a business, the only reason overhead exists is to cut it, and support has always been overhead.
Way, way fewer people will call CS than will just ignore the warning.
Once we become acclimated to things like this, we stop complaining, and let the greedy fuckers win.
Air Canada argued that it could not be held liable for information provided by the bot.
the (probably legally required) system we set up just straight up lied, not our fault.
Are chatbots really legally required?
I am assuming the customer should legally have a way to contact a company.
Companies try to make this obligation cost less and less by using automation and self service.
Source : worked on the customer service platform for a fortune 500 company.
Yeah I’m also confused as to what they mean by this.
https://lemmy.world/comment/7546839
I am assuming the customer should legally have a way to contact a company.
Companies try to make this obligation cost less and less by using automation and self service.
Source : worked on the customer service platform for a fortune 500 company.
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
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.
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.
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.
Nothing to do with the money and everything to do with the precedent. Glad it didn’t work out for them.
I love that now the precedent exists and companies will think twice before adding chatbots like these.
