> I wonder if intent matters. I think it's pretty obvious from the $1 car case that the guy was intentionally trying to break the bot. IANAL either, but I thou

> I wonder if intent matters. I think it's pretty obvious from the $1 car case that the guy was intentionally trying to break the bot. IANAL either, but I thought it was that obvious errors are not usually upheld in these scenarios. (Where "obvious" is something like "a reasonable person would think…".) So a $1 car would probably be an obvious error, unless there was some reason for you to think the car was worth nothing. (A $1 car where you purposefully manipulated the bot into making that offer… well.) But here, there seems to be nothing obviously wrong with the chatbot's offer. Bereavement flights/discounts are a thing, and permitting someone to file the necessary paperwork after the fact for 90d also sounds reasonable, since deaths can be sudden and unexpected, that would be a kind thing to offer. The court's ruling seems sound here. "Our chatbot is a separate legal entity", OTOH…