Here’s an interesting story of an airline being held responsible for misinformation that it provided to a customer.
In this post:
Chatbot provides inaccurate Air Canada bereavement fare info
A Canadian man recently sued Air Canada, after the airline provided him with incorrect information, and then refused to make him whole. Long story short, a Vancouver man lost his grandmother, and then immediately went to Air Canada’s website to book a ticket to Toronto for the funeral.
It’s common for airlines to offer discounted bereavement fares, for those suffering from a recent loss. While using Air Canada’s website, the man encountered a support chatbot, so he asked about bereavement fares. The chatbot stated the following:
“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.”
Based on that assurance, he booked a ticket. Then after the trip, he reached out to Air Canada to get a partial refund reflecting the bereavement fare, though the airline claimed that it doesn’t apply bereavement rates to completed travel. In Air Canada’s defense, another part of the website states this, but that doesn’t excuse the chatbot providing incorrect information.
As the traveler explains:
“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.”
Traveler wins lawsuit against Air Canada
Since Air Canada refused to honor what the chatbot stated, the man decided to take the airline to court. Air Canada’s defense was to distance itself from the chatbot’s bad advice, by claiming that the tool was “a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions.” Air Canada further argued that it can’t be held liable for information provided by one its “agents, servants, or representatives, including a chatbot.”
The judge found that Air Canada didn’t take reasonable care to ensure its chatbot was accurate, and ruled in favor of the passenger, with some pretty strong words:
“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.”
The judge awarded the traveler 812 CAD, the difference between the fare he paid and the standard bereavement fare. This seems like a common sense ruling, and I’m happy to see that the judge sided with the traveler.
A few thoughts:
- It’s sad how inflexible airline customer relations generally is, and how little frontline employees are empowered to make a situation right; have some compassion here, a person lost a family member, and is just trying to get what the airline promised
- It’s pretty gutsy to argue “oh, you can’t rely on our chatbot because it’s a third party” when it’s on your own website and you promote it as a feature
- It’s interesting how the airline not only claims it’s not liable because the chatbot is run by a third party, but also claims that it can’t be held liable for information provided by humans
- As anyone who has dealt with airlines extensively knows, there’s a lot of misinformation from frontline agents, and that can lead to a lot of frustration; so whether it’s a phone representative or a gate agent, it’s annoying when misinformation leads to problems with a ticket, but then the airline claims they’re not liable
- Unfortunately I don’t even think this issue is exclusive to Air Canada, but I’d be willing to bet that a vast majority of airlines would have handled this situation similarly
Bottom line
A Canadian traveler sued Air Canada and won, after the carrier’s chatbot gave incorrect information, leading the traveler to lose hundreds of dollars.
Air Canada claimed it wasn’t liable for the information provided by the chatbot, though that’s a rather absurd argument to make, when clearly the airline just didn’t take reasonable care to ensure the accuracy of information provided.
What’s your take on this Air Canada lawsuit?
Since their chatbot is a separate entity, I sure hope Air Canada is paying it the minimum wage and also paying the CRP the bot's CPP, EI, and worker's comp payroll taxes. Does it have a SIN?
AC refusing to refund during Covid, refusing to refund because their chatbot gave wrong info. I mean, I really feel like I shouldn't risk flying AC with paid tickets, or even with points. It feels like a lottery.
Honestly, it is also AC. Sometimes, we up north feel the company considers passengers as its number one enemy.
A bit less attitude, a bit less legalese (I mean, really, a "separate legal entity", who dreamt that stuff up) and a little bit more common sense and service.
Amazing legal precedent
I love the fact they basically 'sacked' the chatbot and got rid of it completely after this
It's about time airlines are held accountable, too bad that never happens in the US.
Airline employees in the US suffer no consequences for lying because the DOT is the only one that has all the power after deregulation and it does not intervene when customers are lied to, and airline management only responds to monetary costs/fines otherwise they're quite with not supervising their employees.
Wow, just read the blog about Air Canada being held liable for chatbot misinformation. It's a wake-up call for companies relying on AI-driven customer service! This highlights the importance of accuracy and accountability in automated systems
Surprised AC didnt settle. The lawyer's fee has to be greater than the $812 CAD. I am guessing he sued in small claims court, otherwise his lawyer fee would consume his damages. I thought that the US was litigious and not Canada.
This is the most vile corporation in Canada. Settling means admitting wrong. That's not the AC way. They will lie and spend money on lawyers instead of doing the right thing.
I really could not agree more!!!! Foul company and foulest FFP
Worst airline with terrible customer service. I am not sure how much more it would take for this airline to be closed forever. They never assume any responsibility on anything.
I support each word you mentioned about them and couldn't agree more
"Air Canada’s defense was to distance itself from the chatbot’s bad advice, by claiming that the tool was “a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions.” "
That has to be the most ridiculous claim an airline has made in a long time. Wonder if the judge laughed out loud?
Shouldn't the court refunded the entire price of the ticket because the passenger had to go to trouble of suing the airline? I am not looking for a crazy award amount.
Good ruling. Surprised there are no punitive damages.
If your chatbot isn't reponsible for giving accurate information, why even have a Chatbot to begin with? Ironically if the Chatbot didn't exist it would probably give customers better answers as they search through the Q&A page to find things they're looking for.
AC isn't responsible for anything. Bad decision making? It's just a rogue C-suite executive. Bad contract and puts them at a bad position? Just say the lawyers are responsible for it, not AC.
What a ridiculous claim.
Points geek. #PTGeek - novel and good for your brand.
Whatever.
Just stop calling yourself an #AVGEEK.
Airline geek #
NOT AV
Ben, A few more notes to clarify.
Sort of an online small claims in BC
No judge, only a designated tribunal member
a. $650.88 in damages,
b. $36.14 in pre-judgment interest under the Court Order Interest Act, and
c. $125 in CRT fees.
AC and LH must use the same law firm, Schadenfreude & Sons. What a defense! the “chatbot” did it!
AC can now just say "we didn't lose the case! the law firm we hired did it!".
We truly are inhuman to one another.
What gets me is that it cost AC far more than $800 to fight this claim. Airlines are notorious for being penny wise-dollar foolish. And what does it get them? Had they just quietly paid the claim it likely never would have been made public, with the resulting negative publicity.
And it also left a precedent. Now, there is a ruling. Any misinformation from their agent now makes them liable since you can now point out this ruling.
if there's one thing we know about Air Canada, it's that they have some sort of kink for negative publicity
I think it's just a matter of fact at this point; when you're so rubbish across so many fronts, and do not put any effort to right any wrongs or shortcomings due to you being the main option for a lot of people, you become complacent and all the terrible aspects of the way you do things just naturally bring negative publicity.
A bad company will sooner or later be known as a bad company.
Air Canada is a bad company
It's not a kink if it comes naturally because you're just perpetually bad.
Had they won, it would allow them to do whatever with immunity. It was a huge gamble with a huge possible payout for the company long term. However, they didn't win so it was a huge loss. It's also doubtful this cost them much as you'd expect because I assume their legal team is more than likely calculated into their run rate and not a power by hour type of agreement.
I read about this incident earlier this am before I saw Ben's post and my first reaction was: So what All of us have received confusing, misleading, or just plain wrong information from airline customer support -- human or otherwise. Caveat Emptor
About 10 years ago I had to make last minute changes in travel on AC because of a family emergency. Interestingly their policy at that time was pay the regular published fare...
I read about this incident earlier this am before I saw Ben's post and my first reaction was: So what All of us have received confusing, misleading, or just plain wrong information from airline customer support -- human or otherwise. Caveat Emptor
About 10 years ago I had to make last minute changes in travel on AC because of a family emergency. Interestingly their policy at that time was pay the regular published fare and submit a bereavement request after the flight was complete. I did that and received partial reimbursement.
That was a lot of words to say absolutely nothing.
It’s good that airlines and other companies are held liable for detrimental reliance. Agent representations upon which customers rely should be legally actionable when the customer has faced economic harm because of the sellers’ misrepresentations made in the lead up to and/or during a sale or contract engagement. And fine print in a contract of adhesion shouldn’t be considered to override verbal representations made by agents — be those agents actual humans or chatbot programs...
It’s good that airlines and other companies are held liable for detrimental reliance. Agent representations upon which customers rely should be legally actionable when the customer has faced economic harm because of the sellers’ misrepresentations made in the lead up to and/or during a sale or contract engagement. And fine print in a contract of adhesion shouldn’t be considered to override verbal representations made by agents — be those agents actual humans or chatbot programs used to “inform” customers looking at and making purchases.
From a more practical perspective, did he get reimbursed for the legal fees that he had to incur? If not, I would say it was a fairly costly move to get $800 back…
In Canada, it is more common for the winner to recover legal fees. It is not common in the U.S. In fact, it's sometimes called the "American Rule". One exception is some federal court employment discrimination lawsuits under section 1983 can result in a losing employer paying both sides legal fees.
The system (CRT) the traveller used is akin to small claims court. There's a minor filing fee (I think $150 or so), which the traveller was reimbursed by Air Canada after winning the judgement.
No legal assistance is required for the CRT, you just need to write a clear description of your events and what you're seeking, plus attach any evidence you might have. It's not intended to be onerous or require much assistance,...
The system (CRT) the traveller used is akin to small claims court. There's a minor filing fee (I think $150 or so), which the traveller was reimbursed by Air Canada after winning the judgement.
No legal assistance is required for the CRT, you just need to write a clear description of your events and what you're seeking, plus attach any evidence you might have. It's not intended to be onerous or require much assistance, but rather designed for the average person to use.
He did, it's a small claims court filing. He presents himself and the court does not require any legal language or representation. $150 of the $800 covers the filing costs.
Tells you everything you need to know about this rotten company
If it wasn't for subsidies, bailouts and "loans" we would've been rid of this scum years ago
I wish more and more passengers place lawsuits against Air Canada and Aeroplan
Couldn't have put it better myself.
Those that don't have the curse of being limited to this carrier wouldn't understand, and I pray your experiences with AC are short and to the point.
What an atrocious company through and through--from the ground experience, to the soft product, to their rug-pull of an reward program.
Guess AC can't blame on untrained interns making personal comments anymore
Canadian here: Couple things.
1. This was small claims court, so precedent is not set, despite most news stories suggesting that it is.
2. It's truly sad how bad Canada's enforcement mechanisms are for this type of things. Canada adopted an EC261 style legislation, but getting airlines to pay up requires so many hoops that you need to go to small claims. It's all BS and I wish our government sanctioned airlines beyond a slap on the wrist.
It is not precedent for any higher courts in B.C., of which the CRT is the lowest. However it is unlikely this matter gets taken up by any other court level, and I think the analysis is persuasive for any other decisions in other jurisdictions. I would guess a disclaimer would be added to the chatbot if it still exists.
I too find it crazy that Air Canada claims they aren't responsible for bad information provided by their own employees. Would that hold up in court?