Dentons
A useful last resort: pursuing directors personally for unpaid company debts
What if you are owed money and you believe a director is in breach of their duties?
Can companies blame chatbots for their misrepresentations to consumers? Can chatbots be liable for what they say? A Canadian civil-resolutions tribunal says no.
The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal decided against Air Canada after its chatbot misled a consumer on bereavement fares, despite the airline’s rather optimistic argument that the chatbot was “responsible for its own actions”.
The customer was awarded damages equivalent to the difference between what he paid for the flights, and the discounted bereavement fare.
The case shows, at least in Canada, that the duty to make sure that representations made to consumers are accurate can extend to the representations made by chatbots on behalf of a business, and that these representations are no less important than representations made on any other page on a business’ website.
Given how commonly chatbots are being used nowadays, businesses should make sure that their chatbots are trained on the most accurate and updated information and stress test their chatbots to make sure the answers given by the chatbot accurately reflect their policies and offerings.
The consumer, Mr Moffatt, consulted with the chatbot on Air Canada’s website while booking a flight to Toronto after the death of his grandmother. The chatbot suggested that bereavement fares can be claimed retrospectively, as follows:
“Air Canada offers reduced bereavement fares if you need to travel because of an imminent death or a death in your immediate family. 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.”
Relying on this information, Mr Moffatt took a screenshot of the chatbot’s response, and booked two flights.
After two-and-a-half months of failed attempts to get a partial refund, Mr Moffatt emailed the airline and with the screenshot from the chatbot. In response, an airline representative stated that the chatbot had provided “misleading words” and pointed out the chatbot’s link to Air Canada’s bereavement policy which states: “Please be aware that our bereavement policy does not allow refunds for travel that has already happened.”
Who is responsible?
The crux of the case was whether a link to the airlines “Bereavement Travel Policy” on the airline’s website should have priority over the chatbot’s response, and whether the airline is responsible for the representations made by its chatbot, as if it were a statement on their website.
Air Canada argued that it “cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives – including a chatbot.” In effect, the airline suggested that the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for its own actions.
This argument was rejected by the Tribunal: “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.”
Given its commercial relationship as a service provider and consumer, the Tribunal found that Air Canada owed Mr Moffatt a duty of care, and that Air Canada did not take reasonable care to ensure its chatbot was accurate. Under this reasoning, the Tribunal rejected the airline’s argument that Mr. Moffatt could find the correct information on another part of its website, which the chatbot provided the link for. The Tribunal member accepted Mr Moffatt’s claim that he had relied upon the chatbot to provide accurate information and found that this was reasonable in the circumstances.
The Tribunal notedthat “[t]here was no reason that a webpage titled “Bereavement travel” was inherently more trustworthy than its chatbot”, and that the airline failed to explain why customers should have to double check information found in one part of its website with information on another part of its website.
In the end, Mr Moffatt was awarded CA$650.88 in damages for negligent misrepresentation. In addition, the airline was ordered to pay CA$36.14 in pre-judgment interest and CA$125 in Tribunal fees.
Takeaways
This case re-affirms common sense, that an organisation (albeit, in Canada) can be held liable for the representations (and misrepresentations) its chatbots make. This case is helpful in showing us that a business’ duty of care extends to its chatbots’ representations, and further highlights that, while AI is beneficial, AI has its risks.
Businesses should consider the following key takeaways if they are using, or planning to use, chatbots within their customer experience journeys: