Air Canada’s Chatbot Promised a Refund Its Rules Didn’t Allow

1. A Fare Question

After his grandmother died in November 2022, Jake Moffatt needed to travel between Vancouver and Toronto. He visited Air Canada’s website and asked its chatbot about bereavement fares. The reply said a passenger could buy a ticket and apply within ninety days for a retroactive adjustment after travelling.

Moffatt kept a record of the chatbot’s answer.

2. Buying the Tickets

Moffatt bought tickets and travelled, relying on the explanation the chatbot had provided. The purchase was made at the available fare rather than through a bereavement adjustment arranged before departure. After the flights, he asked Air Canada to refund the difference, following the procedure described in the saved conversation.

The airline’s reply did not match its chatbot’s advice.

3. A Different Written Rule

Air Canada pointed to its bereavement policy, which did not allow the retroactive adjustment Moffatt requested. The chatbot had linked to that policy while giving information inconsistent with it. The passenger and the airline now had two different explanations from the same website for what he should have done.

Moffatt challenged the refusal using the saved exchange.

4. An Acknowledged Error

An Air Canada representative acknowledged that the chatbot had supplied misleading information, but the requested reimbursement remained unresolved. The dispute continued beyond the customer-service exchange. Moffatt brought a claim before British Columbia’s Civil Resolution Tribunal and submitted evidence of the advice he had followed when buying and using the tickets.

The tribunal could compare the conversation with the written policy.

5. The Website Defence

Air Canada argued that Moffatt should have followed the linked policy page. Tribunal member Christopher Rivers questioned why a customer should have to choose which part of the company’s website to believe. The decision also criticized the airline’s attempt to distance itself from information supplied by the chatbot on that website.

The issue was responsibility for the inaccurate information.

6. The Finding

Rivers found Air Canada liable for negligent misrepresentation. The decision examined whether Moffatt reasonably relied on the advice and whether that reliance caused a loss. It accepted the passenger’s claim for the difference between the fare paid and the applicable bereavement fare, rather than treating the chatbot’s answer as a valid policy change.

The decision then calculated the money owed.

7. The Award

The tribunal awarded Moffatt C$650.88 in damages, C$36.14 in pre-judgment interest and C$125 in tribunal fees. Together those amounts came to C$812.02. The fare difference was the damages component; the interest and fees were additional parts of the award, rather than another refund of the same fare.

The written decision was issued in February 2024.

8. The Saved Answer

The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal found Air Canada responsible for the inaccurate information supplied by its website chatbot and awarded compensation and costs to Moffatt in February 2024. The result followed the saved conversation and the company’s written policy being examined together. It resolved that passenger’s claim rather than approving the chatbot’s interpretation of every fare rule or deciding all future airline disputes.

The tribunal awarded compensation for the inaccurate advice.

Sources

• Original narrative adaptation — CC BY-SA 4.0
• Wikipedia contributors — Moffatt v. Air Canada (CC BY-SA 4.0)