The article doesn't say (imo an omission), but I assume the argument wasn't that level of stupid More likely, they blamed a third party vendor that developed,

The article doesn't say (imo an omission), but I assume the argument wasn't that level of stupid More likely, they blamed a third party vendor that developed, configured, or hosts the bot Which sounds like a similar situation to when your taxi breaks due to a mechanic's shoddy work: it's not the passenger's fault that your mechanic sucked, you were contracted to get them from A to B and may be on the hook if you stated you'd get them there on time. Here, it's not the user's fault that the chat bot was shoddy and stated something that they now don't want to fulfil. If AirCan wants to blame their vendor, they can go right ahead but this person has a right to this reduced flight price independently of whether AirCan gets the money from their vendor But explaining all that instead of saying "haha they claimed the chat bot is an independent entity!" probably gets shared less (it's yesterday's top comment after all) and thus fewer conversions from website readers into subscribers