6 ms·

IANAL, but it's astounding they took that as their defense, rather than pointing to a line (I hope?) in their ToS that says "This agreement is the complete term

IANAL, but it's astounding they took that as their defense, rather than pointing to a line (I hope?) in their ToS that says "This agreement is the complete terms of service, and cannot be amended or changed by any agent or representative of the company except by ... (some very specific process the bot can't follow)". I've seen this mentioned in several ToSs, I expect it to be standard boilerplate at this point ...

sdwr 3y ago
Those ToS statements overreach their capabilities a lot of the time. They're ammunition against the customer, but don't always hold up in the legal system.
AlexandrB 3y ago
How is that enforceable? In many cases this is carte blanche for company representatives to lie to you. No one is going to read the ToS and cross reference it with what they're being told in real time. Moreover, if a customer was familiar with the ToS they would not be asking questions like this of a chatbot. The entire idea of having a clause like this while also running a "help" chatbot that can contradict it seems like bad faith dealing.
dataflow 3y ago
How do those clauses actually work? If a rep does something nice for you (like give you something for free), could the airline say it never agreed to that in writing or whatever and demand it back? How are you supposed to know if a rep has authority to enter into an agreement with you over random matters? But, to your question, my guess is that would basically be telling people not to avoid their chatbot, which they don't want to do.
- paxys 3y ago
  It's more to shield them from cases like a rep gifting you free flights for life.
  - dataflow 3y ago
    I realize the intention but I'm wondering how it works legally given what the terms actually say.
    - paxys 3y ago
      What you are or aren't entitled to is written down in the terms of service. Support agents can only help interpret the terms for you. They may be authorized to go beyond that to some degree, but the company will also have the right to reverse the decision made by the agent.
JCM9 3y ago
Courts often rule that you can’t use ToS to overcome common sense. ToS are not a get out of jail free card if your company just does stupid things.
easyThrowaway 3y ago
I guess the original issue pointed by the judge would still stand: how am I supposed to know which terms are to be assumed true and valid? Why would I assume a ToS hidden somewhere (Is it still valid? does it apply to my case? Is it relevant and binding to my jurisdiction?) is to be considered more trustworthy than an Air Canada agent?
kreek 3y ago
Beyond the chatbot's error and the legal approach they took, this bad PR could have been avoided by any manager in the chain doing the right thing by overriding things and just giving him the bereavement fare (and then fixing the bot/updating the policy).
Drakim 3y ago
That does make sense, but on the flipside, let's say that they start advertising discounts on TV, but when people try to pay the reduced rate they say "according to our ToS that TV ad was not authorized to lower the price". Obviously that wouldn't fly. So why would it fly with the AI chatbot's advertising discounts?
- AnthonyMouse 3y ago
  You'd normally expect a TV ad to be authorized to make offers. You wouldn't normally expect an AI chatbot to be authorized to make offers. Its purpose is to try to answer common questions and it has been widely covered in popular media that they hallucinate etc.
  - kube-system 3y ago
    > You wouldn't normally expect an AI chatbot to be authorized to make offers. I think only software engineers would think this. I don't think it is obvious to a layperson who probably has maybe never even used one before.
  - Zak 3y ago
    I disagree. I expect any credible offer a company makes in an advertisement, on its website, using a chatbot, or through a customer service agent to be authorized by the company. Surely a corporation with lots of resources knows better than to program a chatbot to make fake offers; they'd get sued. And they did get sued. Next time maybe they'll make sure software they connect to their website is more reliable.
    - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
      > Surely a corporation with lots of resources knows better than to program a chatbot to make fake offers; they'd get sued. They didn't program it to do that, it's a characteristic of the technology that it makes mistakes. Which is fine as the public learns not to blindly trust its answers. It seems silly to assume that people won't be able to figure that out. People are capable of learning how new things work. This is like the people who set the cruise control in their car when it first came out and then climbed into the back of the car to take a nap. That's not how it works and the technology isn't in a state where anybody knows how to do better.

sdwr 3y ago

Those ToS statements overreach their capabilities a lot of the time. They're ammunition against the customer, but don't always hold up in the legal system.

AlexandrB 3y ago

How is that enforceable? In many cases this is carte blanche for company representatives to lie to you. No one is going to read the ToS and cross reference it with what they're being told in real time. Moreover, if a customer was familiar with the ToS they would not be asking questions like this of a chatbot. The entire idea of having a clause like this while also running a "help" chatbot that can contradict it seems like bad faith dealing.

dataflow 3y ago

How do those clauses actually work? If a rep does something nice for you (like give you something for free), could the airline say it never agreed to that in writing or whatever and demand it back? How are you supposed to know if a rep has authority to enter into an agreement with you over random matters? But, to your question, my guess is that would basically be telling people not to avoid their chatbot, which they don't want to do.

paxys 3y ago
It's more to shield them from cases like a rep gifting you free flights for life.
- dataflow 3y ago
  I realize the intention but I'm wondering how it works legally given what the terms actually say.
  - paxys 3y ago
    What you are or aren't entitled to is written down in the terms of service. Support agents can only help interpret the terms for you. They may be authorized to go beyond that to some degree, but the company will also have the right to reverse the decision made by the agent.

JCM9 3y ago

Courts often rule that you can’t use ToS to overcome common sense. ToS are not a get out of jail free card if your company just does stupid things.

easyThrowaway 3y ago

I guess the original issue pointed by the judge would still stand: how am I supposed to know which terms are to be assumed true and valid? Why would I assume a ToS hidden somewhere (Is it still valid? does it apply to my case? Is it relevant and binding to my jurisdiction?) is to be considered more trustworthy than an Air Canada agent?

kreek 3y ago

Beyond the chatbot's error and the legal approach they took, this bad PR could have been avoided by any manager in the chain doing the right thing by overriding things and just giving him the bereavement fare (and then fixing the bot/updating the policy).

Drakim 3y ago

That does make sense, but on the flipside, let's say that they start advertising discounts on TV, but when people try to pay the reduced rate they say "according to our ToS that TV ad was not authorized to lower the price". Obviously that wouldn't fly. So why would it fly with the AI chatbot's advertising discounts?

AnthonyMouse 3y ago
You'd normally expect a TV ad to be authorized to make offers. You wouldn't normally expect an AI chatbot to be authorized to make offers. Its purpose is to try to answer common questions and it has been widely covered in popular media that they hallucinate etc.
- kube-system 3y ago
  > You wouldn't normally expect an AI chatbot to be authorized to make offers. I think only software engineers would think this. I don't think it is obvious to a layperson who probably has maybe never even used one before.
- Zak 3y ago
  I disagree. I expect any credible offer a company makes in an advertisement, on its website, using a chatbot, or through a customer service agent to be authorized by the company. Surely a corporation with lots of resources knows better than to program a chatbot to make fake offers; they'd get sued. And they did get sued. Next time maybe they'll make sure software they connect to their website is more reliable.
  - AnthonyMouse 3y ago
    > Surely a corporation with lots of resources knows better than to program a chatbot to make fake offers; they'd get sued. They didn't program it to do that, it's a characteristic of the technology that it makes mistakes. Which is fine as the public learns not to blindly trust its answers. It seems silly to assume that people won't be able to figure that out. People are capable of learning how new things work. This is like the people who set the cruise control in their car when it first came out and then climbed into the back of the car to take a nap. That's not how it works and the technology isn't in a state where anybody knows how to do better.