And if a random AC employee said[0] they'd give you a billion dollars, you wouldn't be entitled to it because any judge or jury hearing the case would say a reasonable person wouldn't believe that. Unlike computers, which do exactly what they're told[1], the legal system applies sanity checks and social context.
[0] perhaps because they're disgruntled and trying to hurt their employer
[1] generative models are not an exception; they're a way of telling computers to generate text that sometimes contains falsehoods
> And if a random AC employee said[0] they'd give you a billion dollars, you wouldn't be entitled to it because any judge or jury hearing the case would say a reasonable person wouldn't believe that.
I'm sure that if the bot had said that the airline would raise your dead relative from the grave and make you king of the sky or something equally unbelievable the courts wouldn't have insisted Air Canada cast a crown and learn necromancy.
>If a random AC employee gave you a free flight, on the other hand, you'd be entitled to it.
The company would be entirely within their rights to say 'this employee was wrong, that is not our policy, goodbye!'. This happens all the time with more minor incidents.
No idea about the US but this very same case was tested in France and some part of Germany in the late 90s when some PayTVs (Sky or Canal+, can't remember) tried to cancel multiple subscriptions offered with an extremely aggressive pricing by some of their agents. Courts concluded that the signed agreements superseded the official pricing and they had to offer the service for the entire length of the original subscription.
Where I live, "meeting of the minds" is necessary for a contract. Written or not. In this case, that meeting didn't happen. Due to the bullshit generator employed by Air Canada.
So there was no contract but a consumed flight. The court has to retroactively figure out a reasonable contract in such cases. That Air Canada couldn't just apply the reduced rate once they learned of their wrong communication marks them as incredibly petty.
That's far less likely to be true if the customer buys something based on the employee's erroneous statement. I suspect in an otherwise-identical case with a human customer service agent, the same judge would have ruled Air Canada must honor the offer.
A random AC employee who is having a bad day and hates his employer says "You are entitled to free flights for the rest of your life." Is Air Canada liable?
No, because that's not "reasonable". My dad jokes that he's made a career off of determining what is "reasonable" and what isn't, and he's a contract attorney.
If you were standing at the customer service desk, and instead they said: "sorry about the delay, your next two flights are free", then all of a sudden this is "reasonable".
No, because no reasonable person would think that they had the authority to authorize that. Remember, the legal system is not computer code - judges look at things like intent and plausibility.
If a random AC employee gave you a free flight, on the other hand, you'd be entitled to it.
Anyway, the chat bot has no agency except that given to it by AC; unlike a human employee, therefore, its actions are 100% AC actions.
I don't see how this is controversial? Why do people think that laws no longer apply when fancy high-tech pixie dust is sprinkled?