The Consequence Library · How records are made and graded
Air Canada's website chatbot told a customer he could apply retroactively for a bereavement fare, which was not the airline's policy. The British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal held the airline responsible for the statement and ordered damages.
What happened
A customer, planning travel after a death in the family, asked Air Canada's chatbot about bereavement fares and was told he could book at full price and apply for a reduced rate within 90 days. That was inconsistent with the airline's actual policy, which did not allow retroactive application. When the airline refused the refund, the customer brought a claim. In a decision issued on 14 February 2024, the tribunal rejected the airline's argument that the chatbot was a separate legal entity responsible for its own actions, holding that the airline was responsible for all information on its website whether it came from a static page or a chatbot, and awarded damages and fees.
Where control failed
The chatbot delivered information to a customer that was inconsistent with Air Canada's published policy. The record does not identify a validation or review mechanism that corrected the statement before it reached the customer.
The authority question
The tribunal held Air Canada responsible for information supplied through its website chatbot. The case therefore provides a documented example of organisational responsibility for an automated customer-facing statement.
What could be proven afterward
The record is a published tribunal decision, including the screenshot of the chatbot's statement that the customer preserved. That preservation was the customer's doing, not the company's. Had he not kept it, the claim would have turned on recollection of a conversation with a system that keeps no account the other party can reach.
Control state, before and after
Before the consequence
Generated customer-facing statements with no binding to the authoritative policy source, and no gate on statements creating commitments.
After the consequence
Tribunal decision holding the company responsible for its chatbot's statements, widely cited since as authority on the point.
Sources
- Primary: Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149 (British Columbia Civil Resolution Tribunal), 14 Feb 2024 · https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2024/2024bccrt149/2024bccrt149.html
Record history
Published 16 August 2026. Load-bearing facts re-verified against the cited sources on 16 August 2026. Corrections and material changes are appended here with their dates. To report an error in this record, write to hello@regulayer.com with the record slug and the source you believe is authoritative.
This record describes what sources establish about a consequence and the control state around it. It separates confirmed fact from source-stated cause and from architectural analysis, and it makes no claim that any control or product would have prevented the outcome. Gap codes identify a failure class, not a remedy.