Didn't he mention it was the court's definition? But I'm not sure if that's true. The court didn't define anything, in contrary they only said that (in simplif

Didn't he mention it was the court's definition? But I'm not sure if that's true. The court didn't define anything, in contrary they only said that (in simplified terms) the chatbot was part of the website and it's reasonable to expect the info on their website to be accurate. The closest I could find to the chatbot being considered an agent in legal terms (an entity like an employee) is this: > Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives – including a chatbot. Source: https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2024/2024bccrt149/2024bccrt149.html https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2024/2024bccrt149/202...