Bankrupt by AI
All case files
On the recordRuling · Feb 2024

Bad automation

Air Canada and the chatbot’s own advice

Air Canada · Aviation · Canada

A grieving passenger followed the airline’s chatbot. Its advice contradicted the airline’s own policy — and a tribunal ruled the airline owned the words.

The chatbot said

Claim the bereavement fare retroactively, within 90 days of ticket issuance.

The linked policy said

Bereavement fares cannot be claimed once travel is completed.

C$812

The award

Precedent

The actual cost

Negligent misrepresentation

The two sentences the airline published at the same time — and what the gap between them cost.

The record

  • In Moffatt v. Air Canada (2024 BCCRT 149, decided 14 February 2024), a British Columbia tribunal found the airline liable for negligent misrepresentation over its website chatbot’s advice.
  • The chatbot told a bereaved passenger he could claim a reduced bereavement fare retroactively, within 90 days of ticket issuance — contradicting the policy page the bot itself linked to.
  • The tribunal rejected Air Canada’s argument that the chatbot was “a separate legal entity,” calling it “a remarkable submission,” and awarded C$812.02 (C$650.88 in damages plus interest and fees).

The advice

Jake Moffatt asked Air Canada’s website chatbot about bereavement fares after a death in the family. The bot told him he could book now and apply for the reduced rate retroactively, “within 90 days of the date your ticket was issued.” He did. When he applied, Air Canada refused — because its actual bereavement policy, stated on a page the chatbot had itself linked to, does not allow claims after travel is completed.

So the failure was not a hallucination in the loose sense. The bot pointed at the correct policy and, in the same breath, described the opposite of it. The customer, reasonably, believed the sentence over the link.

“A remarkable submission”

Air Canada’s defence was that it should not be liable for what its chatbot said — that the bot was, in the tribunal’s paraphrase, “a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions.” Tribunal member Christopher Rivers called this “a remarkable submission,” and rejected it: “While a chatbot has an interactive component, it is still just a part of Air Canada’s website… It makes no difference whether the information comes from a static page or a chatbot.”

The airline was found to have committed negligent misrepresentation — it “did not take reasonable care to ensure its chatbot was accurate” — and ordered to pay Moffatt C$812.02, made up of C$650.88 in damages plus interest and tribunal fees.

Why C$812 is the least important number

The award would not cover the airline’s coffee budget for a morning. Its significance is that it is now precedent, widely cited across jurisdictions: a company owns the output of its customer-facing automation as fully as it owns any other sentence on its website. The “the bot did it” defence was tested, in public, and it failed.

The mechanism is the one our composite on good and bad automation describes exactly: a customer-facing surface, a high cost of a wrong answer borne by the customer, and no escape hatch between the bad sentence and the harm. Change any one of those and there is no case. Air Canada changed none of them, and quietly removed the chatbot afterward.

The lesson

A customer-facing bot with no human escape hatch is the company speaking in its own voice — you own its worst sentence. The cost here was C$812; the precedent is that you always will.

How we’re reading this

This was a small-claims tribunal and the award was trivial; its weight is as precedent, not penalty. The decision did not turn on what technology powered the bot, so “AI chatbot” is how the case is universally described rather than a finding of the tribunal. The 90-day window in the bot’s message was tied to ticket issuance, not the travel date.

Sources

  1. 01
    Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149

    Civil Resolution Tribunal (CanLII) · Feb 14, 2024

  2. 02
  3. 03
  4. 04
  5. 05
The pattern, anonymizedGood automation, bad automation

Compiled from public filings, court records, company statements and reputable press. Figures are attributed to their sources; allegations are labeled as such. Not legal or investment advice.