From: Kelvin
F.K. Low <kelvin.low@gmail.com>
Sent: Monday 19
February 2024 23:39
To: Steve
Hedley; obligations@uwo.ca
Subject: Re:
Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149 - negligent misrep by a chatbot
The
two key passages (for me at any rate) are paragraphs 27 and 31.
"27. Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information
provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives including a
chatbot. It does not explain why it believes that is the case. In effect, Air
Canada suggests the chatbot is a separate legal entity that is responsible for
its own actions. 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."
This must be correct. You can use whatever
technology you wish to make representations (deterministic or stochastic) but
expect to be liable if those turn out to be misrepresentations.
"31. To the extent Air Canada argues it is
not liable due to certain terms or conditions of its tariff, I note it did not
provide a copy of the relevant portion of the tariff. It only included
submissions about what the tariff allegedly says. Air Canada is a sophisticated
litigant that should know it is not enough in a legal process to assert that a
contract says something without actually providing the contract. The CRT also
tells all parties are told to provide all relevant evidence. I find that if Air
Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the
relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a
contractual defence."
Does anyone know what the alleged conditions
are? An entire agreements clause perhaps? Would it survive scrutiny in Canada
against a consumer, which Moffatt is?
Cheers,
Kelvin
Sent
from Outlook for Android
From: Steve Hedley <S.Hedley@ucc.ie>
Sent: Monday, February 19, 2024 11:52:45 PM
To: obligations@uwo.ca <obligations@uwo.ca>
Subject: Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149 - negligent misrep by a
chatbot
The CyberProf list is currently going full tilt at this one, unsurprisingly. The ODG will I imagine be more restrained, as it is a low-level decision and the problem is only rather superficially analyzed. However, I imagine this will be the first of many similar instances, and so may be worth discussion.
Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149
https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2024/2024bccrt149/2024bccrt149.html
2. In November 2022, following the death of their grandmother, Jake Moffatt booked a flight with Air Canada. While researching flights, Mr. Moffat used a chatbot on Air Canada s website. The chatbot suggested Mr. Moffatt could apply for bereavement fares retroactively. Mr. Moffatt later learned from Air Canada employees that Air Canada did not permit retroactive applications.
3. Mr. Moffatt says Air Canada must provide them with a partial refund of the ticket price, as they relied upon the chatbot s advice. They claim $880 for what they say is the difference in price between the regular and alleged bereavement fares.
Liability was found, on the basis of a negligent misrepresentation for which Air Canada were responsible.
Steve Hedley