Air Canada chatbot gives incorrect bereavement-fare advice

On November 11, 2022, Jake Moffatt consulted Air Canada’s chatbot and bought a flight relying on advice that bereavement fares could be requested retroactively. The chatbot’s linked policy page contradicted that advice. The chronology dates this interaction, rather than the February 14, 2024 tribunal decision (§§13–18).^[1]

What the decision established

In Moffatt v. Air Canada, the British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal found negligent misrepresentation and reasonable reliance. It ordered CAD 650.88 damages plus interest and fees, totaling CAD 812.02 (§§24–32, 44).^[1]

The member wrote: “It makes no difference whether the information comes from a static page or a chatbot.” (§27.) A link to correct information did not resolve the conflicting representation on these facts.^[1]

What remains unknown

The decision says Air Canada supplied no information about the chatbot’s nature (§14). It does not identify an LLM, diagnose a generation mechanism or verify a technical remedy.^[1]

A research reading path

The hallucination survey supplies vocabulary for unsupported generated text, rather than a reconstruction of this system. Read Hallucination alongside Sycophancy: inaccurate content and approval-seeking are different questions.

For an editorial analogy, imagine two desks in one travel office giving incompatible refund instructions. The customer’s problem is deciding which instruction to act on; attaching a sign pointing from one desk to the other does not itself reconcile them. This illustrates the conflict, rather than establish a general liability rule.

The incidents guide connects the episode to broader questions about evidence, oversight and responsibility.