10 ms·

I just can't believe it took a lawsuit to get an airline to fork over a few hundred bucks on something that was obviously their fault.

by brentm 3y ago

londons_explore 3y ago
And the issue here was purely procedural - we aren't talking about some damage they refuse to pay for, but merely some customer using the 'incorrect' process to claim something they are eligible for.
ceejayoz 3y ago
Yeah; this should've been well within some second-tier customer service manager's discretionary refund budget. Instead they've got a precedent-setting ruling that makes the chatbot a huge liability.
- silisili 3y ago
  I hope they do become huge liabilities as it's irresponsible. I'm as excited as the next guy about the future, but companies shoehorning terrible "AI" to replace support channels is infuriating. The -only- good interaction I've had with a chatbot was the one Amazon uses or used to use, where you could click from a few options, and it'd just issue you a refund.
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
- beambot 3y ago
  Recall when the Chevy dealership's chatbot agreed to sell a Chevy Tahoe for $1... https://www.businessinsider.com/car-dealership-chevrolet-chatbot-chatgpt-pranks-chevy-2023-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/car-dealership-chevrolet-cha...
  - ceejayoz 3y ago
    If Chevy dealerships had $1 bereavement Chevy Tahoes as a normal business practice, I think that one would've gone the other way. In the Air Canada case, it was a clear good-faith effort to understand the rules of a fare he was legitimately entitled to.
    - londons_explore 3y ago
      I think eventually courts will decide that whatever a chatbot or employee says while working for the company is binding on the company, as long as there was no malicious intent on either the part of the employee or the customer.
      - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
        Australian consumer law basically already does this (for employees) esp. in the context of e.g. assuring fitness for purpose etc.
      - ianferrel 3y ago
        Probably not "whatever", but anything that passes a "reasonableness" standard. It's totally reasonable to expect that if an airline offers bereavement fares that you could file the paperwork a month later because, like, there's a lot going on if you need a bereavement fare and getting the paperwork together can take time. There are lots of things that an employee might say that would not be reasonable, even if they had no malicious intent.
        tialaramex 3y ago
        Yeah, reasonableness is the usual requirement in law unless otherwise specified. The ruling we're talking about here uses reasonableness several times: "Generally, the applicable standard of care requires a company to take reasonable care to ensure their representations are accurate and not misleading." "I find Air Canada did not take reasonable care to ensure its chatbot was accurate." "Mr. Moffatt says, and I accept, that they relied upon the chatbot to provide accurate information. I find that was reasonable in the circumstances."
- tomrod 3y ago
  > chatbot a huge liability This is an appropriate outcome, in my view. I'm as pro-AI as they come. But I also recognize that without a clear standard of service delivery, and in an industry inundated with M&A instead of competition, that a chatbot isn't a helpful thing but a labor cost reduction initiative.
- jlarocco 3y ago
  > Instead they've got a precedent-setting ruling that makes the chatbot a huge liability. Good.
- camillomiller 3y ago
  I wouldn’t exclude that it was made to escalate on purpose by those who are politically against the chatbot. Would have been a great move
delfinom 3y ago
They wanted to set a precedent they could use when they replace customer service with shit spewing bots.
OJFord 3y ago
Yeah seems really dumb to let it get that far. I wonder if they tried to settle, but Mofatt/lawyer (I would guess it's either small claims or a pro bono thing?) refused, preferring the publicity?
DavidSJ 3y ago
I think they weren't worried about those few hundred bucks so much as precedent resulting in some future liability of millions of dollars when their chatbot misinforms tens of thousands of customers about something.
- rjh29 3y ago
  Wow that makes so much sense when you put it that way.
- ashearer 3y ago
  On the other hand, if they had quietly offered a one-time policy exception before reaching the point of a court verdict, they would have avoided any kind of precedent.
SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
Probably because they felt confident they could set a precedent would be my guess. Of course the argument is absurd, but this is exactly where companies like this would love to go. Virtually free support staff that incur the company absolutely no liability whatsoever.
- ryandrake 3y ago
  Maybe companies are so used to their $multimillion dollar legal teams winning against broke Average Joes that their legal departments are starting to just assume that it will always happen and that all court precedents are going to be favorable. They've been sniffing their own farts for so long they think it's fresh air.
  - astrange 3y ago
    If you sue a company in small claims having an expensive legal team doesn't help them that much.
    - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
      Could you elaborate?
      - astrange 3y ago
        Mostly all the expensive procedures aren't allowed, there isn't a jury so it moves faster, and in some places lawyers aren't allowed in court even to represent a business.
akira2501 3y ago
It's a signal that the company has internally configured itself in such a way as to insulate the administrative section from the operational section. They've likely done this in an effort to avoid the types of information that would force them to spend money. It's literally just corporate ignorance as a business strategy. What's sad is, on the large, it works in their favor. In any case, it's an equally good signal that you don't want to fly with them.
briga 3y ago
The problem with Canadian airlines (and Canadian companies in general), is that if you don't like the service there aren't really any meaningful alternatives. The two largest carriers have a near total stranglehold on the market (+75%) of flights. They practically have zero incentive to improve because they are propped up by protectionist Canadian policies that prevent foreign companies coming in with any meaningful competition. Their main competitor WestJet is similarly bad. Story of the Canadian economy really
pluc 3y ago
We just bailed them out too. And covid relief. And they have the worst customer complaint resolution record of all the airlines. You can't get them to do shit, they just take take take. It's a national embarrassment, right next to mobile data and internet. Yet our hockey teams play in arenas named after them, with their logo on their sweaters.
ssnistfajen 3y ago
At least the outcome is favourable to the customer who was misled, and since Canada is a Common Law country, this ruling will establish a precedent for future corporate negligence with their chatbots in Canada.
- Aachen 3y ago
  Is there a country where no precedent is set by court rulings? It seems a little weird to be able to (and also practically do) rule differently in the same situation
  - ssnistfajen 3y ago
    Civil/Continental Law jurisdictions AKA the actual world-wide (excl. Anglosphere) norm for legal systems, do not automatically follow precedent rulings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)#Origin_and_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)#Origi... They may consider precedent rulings as factors in the decision, but those earlier rulings themselves do not automatically become law for all future cases on the same subject.
    - Aachen 3y ago
      > world-wide (excl. Anglosphere) Not quite that simple. The word we use is jurisprudentie but it means the same. Opening up the Dutch Wikipedia article and clicking on the English version of the article with thst name, you end up with "Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is a law that is based on precedents" I dove into this when I first heard of the difference between continental law and common law, and found it to be mostly a matter of wording. The principles are opposite but the effects very similar. It's not as though common law countries have no politicians making legislation, or as though there is no precedence in continental law countries. Dutch foundational law (I think the very first article) says "everyone is treated equally given equal circumstances": such an equality principle would be incompatible with different rulings in identical situations. I imagine most countries have equality as a foundational principle, hence I'd be interested to learn: In which country would rulings not set precedence?

I just can't believe it took a lawsuit to get an airline to fork over a few hundred bucks on something that was obviously their fault.

by brentm 3y ago

I just can't believe it took a lawsuit to get an airline to fork over a few hundred bucks on something that was obviously their fault.

londons_explore 3y ago

And the issue here was purely procedural - we aren't talking about some damage they refuse to pay for, but merely some customer using the 'incorrect' process to claim something they are eligible for.

ceejayoz 3y ago

Yeah; this should've been well within some second-tier customer service manager's discretionary refund budget. Instead they've got a precedent-setting ruling that makes the chatbot a huge liability.

silisili 3y ago
I hope they do become huge liabilities as it's irresponsible. I'm as excited as the next guy about the future, but companies shoehorning terrible "AI" to replace support channels is infuriating. The -only- good interaction I've had with a chatbot was the one Amazon uses or used to use, where you could click from a few options, and it'd just issue you a refund.
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
beambot 3y ago
Recall when the Chevy dealership's chatbot agreed to sell a Chevy Tahoe for $1... https://www.businessinsider.com/car-dealership-chevrolet-chatbot-chatgpt-pranks-chevy-2023-12 https://www.businessinsider.com/car-dealership-chevrolet-cha...
- ceejayoz 3y ago
  If Chevy dealerships had $1 bereavement Chevy Tahoes as a normal business practice, I think that one would've gone the other way. In the Air Canada case, it was a clear good-faith effort to understand the rules of a fare he was legitimately entitled to.
  - londons_explore 3y ago
    I think eventually courts will decide that whatever a chatbot or employee says while working for the company is binding on the company, as long as there was no malicious intent on either the part of the employee or the customer.
    - cqqxo4zV46cp 3y ago
      Australian consumer law basically already does this (for employees) esp. in the context of e.g. assuring fitness for purpose etc.
    - ianferrel 3y ago
      Probably not "whatever", but anything that passes a "reasonableness" standard. It's totally reasonable to expect that if an airline offers bereavement fares that you could file the paperwork a month later because, like, there's a lot going on if you need a bereavement fare and getting the paperwork together can take time. There are lots of things that an employee might say that would not be reasonable, even if they had no malicious intent.
      - tialaramex 3y ago
        Yeah, reasonableness is the usual requirement in law unless otherwise specified. The ruling we're talking about here uses reasonableness several times: "Generally, the applicable standard of care requires a company to take reasonable care to ensure their representations are accurate and not misleading." "I find Air Canada did not take reasonable care to ensure its chatbot was accurate." "Mr. Moffatt says, and I accept, that they relied upon the chatbot to provide accurate information. I find that was reasonable in the circumstances."
tomrod 3y ago
> chatbot a huge liability This is an appropriate outcome, in my view. I'm as pro-AI as they come. But I also recognize that without a clear standard of service delivery, and in an industry inundated with M&A instead of competition, that a chatbot isn't a helpful thing but a labor cost reduction initiative.
jlarocco 3y ago
> Instead they've got a precedent-setting ruling that makes the chatbot a huge liability. Good.
camillomiller 3y ago
I wouldn’t exclude that it was made to escalate on purpose by those who are politically against the chatbot. Would have been a great move

delfinom 3y ago

They wanted to set a precedent they could use when they replace customer service with shit spewing bots.

OJFord 3y ago

Yeah seems really dumb to let it get that far. I wonder if they tried to settle, but Mofatt/lawyer (I would guess it's either small claims or a pro bono thing?) refused, preferring the publicity?

DavidSJ 3y ago

I think they weren't worried about those few hundred bucks so much as precedent resulting in some future liability of millions of dollars when their chatbot misinforms tens of thousands of customers about something.

rjh29 3y ago
Wow that makes so much sense when you put it that way.
ashearer 3y ago
On the other hand, if they had quietly offered a one-time policy exception before reaching the point of a court verdict, they would have avoided any kind of precedent.

SuperNinKenDo 3y ago

Probably because they felt confident they could set a precedent would be my guess. Of course the argument is absurd, but this is exactly where companies like this would love to go. Virtually free support staff that incur the company absolutely no liability whatsoever.

ryandrake 3y ago
Maybe companies are so used to their $multimillion dollar legal teams winning against broke Average Joes that their legal departments are starting to just assume that it will always happen and that all court precedents are going to be favorable. They've been sniffing their own farts for so long they think it's fresh air.
- astrange 3y ago
  If you sue a company in small claims having an expensive legal team doesn't help them that much.
  - SuperNinKenDo 3y ago
    Could you elaborate?
    - astrange 3y ago
      Mostly all the expensive procedures aren't allowed, there isn't a jury so it moves faster, and in some places lawyers aren't allowed in court even to represent a business.

akira2501 3y ago

It's a signal that the company has internally configured itself in such a way as to insulate the administrative section from the operational section. They've likely done this in an effort to avoid the types of information that would force them to spend money. It's literally just corporate ignorance as a business strategy. What's sad is, on the large, it works in their favor. In any case, it's an equally good signal that you don't want to fly with them.

briga 3y ago

The problem with Canadian airlines (and Canadian companies in general), is that if you don't like the service there aren't really any meaningful alternatives. The two largest carriers have a near total stranglehold on the market (+75%) of flights. They practically have zero incentive to improve because they are propped up by protectionist Canadian policies that prevent foreign companies coming in with any meaningful competition. Their main competitor WestJet is similarly bad. Story of the Canadian economy really

pluc 3y ago

We just bailed them out too. And covid relief. And they have the worst customer complaint resolution record of all the airlines. You can't get them to do shit, they just take take take. It's a national embarrassment, right next to mobile data and internet. Yet our hockey teams play in arenas named after them, with their logo on their sweaters.

ssnistfajen 3y ago

At least the outcome is favourable to the customer who was misled, and since Canada is a Common Law country, this ruling will establish a precedent for future corporate negligence with their chatbots in Canada.

Aachen 3y ago
Is there a country where no precedent is set by court rulings? It seems a little weird to be able to (and also practically do) rule differently in the same situation
- ssnistfajen 3y ago
  Civil/Continental Law jurisdictions AKA the actual world-wide (excl. Anglosphere) norm for legal systems, do not automatically follow precedent rulings: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)#Origin_and_features https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_law_(legal_system)#Origi... They may consider precedent rulings as factors in the decision, but those earlier rulings themselves do not automatically become law for all future cases on the same subject.
  - Aachen 3y ago
    > world-wide (excl. Anglosphere) Not quite that simple. The word we use is jurisprudentie but it means the same. Opening up the Dutch Wikipedia article and clicking on the English version of the article with thst name, you end up with "Case law, also used interchangeably with common law, is a law that is based on precedents" I dove into this when I first heard of the difference between continental law and common law, and found it to be mostly a matter of wording. The principles are opposite but the effects very similar. It's not as though common law countries have no politicians making legislation, or as though there is no precedence in continental law countries. Dutch foundational law (I think the very first article) says "everyone is treated equally given equal circumstances": such an equality principle would be incompatible with different rulings in identical situations. I imagine most countries have equality as a foundational principle, hence I'd be interested to learn: In which country would rulings not set precedence?