Honestly the most egregious part of this story isn't that the chat bot is wrong, its that the company learned what happened and went 'no, we are gonna contest a simple refund all the way to court' as opposed to just give the refund and fix the error. How degenerate do you have to be?
I must’ve cost them more to pay their lawyer to deal with this case than the judgement ever would’ve been. To say nothing of the impact on public opinion. Just entirely stupid on Air Canada’s part not to tell the person “yeah, that shouldn’t have happened as it’s against our policy. But we messed up, here’s your refund as requested and a $100 voucher as an apology. We look forward to serving you again.”
This. Unless the error is so wildly unreasonable that every sane person should realise it was an obvious error, there's no reason whatsoever to fight it. Edit: And even then, they should offer the client a reasonable compensation for encountering the error.
We had something similar with BCBS. My son broke a tooth and the BCBS on-call nurse got frantic saying we needed to take him to the hospital immediately (it was the weekend after 8pm). Later BCBS refused to cover it as a broken tooth was not an emergency. We said they, through the on-call nurse, told us it was an emergency. Their reply was, "That's just advice. You're the one that chose to follow it. You were free to disregard it."
Yes! And with them, it's an actual person, employed and (to whatever extent) trained by them, who gives you the wrong answer. I vaguely recall some study of it finding that something like half the time, the IRS information line provides the wrong information.
Yup. Learned this in the late 80’s after a military move and trying to deal with an audit. Flat out LIED and said they were looking at my file. Later a contact through my CO said “they don’t have your file, it’s not even available to anyone in their region” (because a military move changed the region that answered the 800 number.
Your Honor, the co-pilot who crashed our aircraft was a separate legal entity, so our airline cannot be held liable for any loss of life in subsequent legal proceedings." I would call it the airline's "sovereign citizen" defense.
No worries dear air line! Who is speaking here? a lawyer? that is a separate legal entity. where is air candada? Not here? well, too bad, here is a default judgment against air canada. Air canada can apeal that, but only air canada, not a representative of air canada.
Additionally, your Honor, the aircraft itself was a separate legal entity, so our airline cannot be held liable for any of our passengers that boarded and died aboard it, regardless of who holds the title for said aircraft.
@@SayAhh That's what they said with Flight FR9884, operated by Eirjet on behalf of Ryanair, landed a passenger plane in a military base. Of course Delta did the same trick too.
It makes my head hurt every time companies will spend more on legal matters than to pay a few hundred dollars to the customers . And the harm to the company name.
If they're setting a new precedent, then they not only save what they would pay this plaintiff but what they would pay future plaintiffs with the same complaint.
It's usually a bureaucracy problem. The employees don't admit fault because if they did their job is on the line. When they don't admit fault the company doesn't pay and it goes to the lawyers.
Air Canada: "You should not trust what we write on our website because it might contradict what is written elsewhere on our website and we want to decide what applies after we lied to you!" Yea, that's an excellent defense. Can't see why that didn't work!
"You are legally liable for falling for fraud despite clear proof we gave you fraudulent advice" is perhaps the most malicious legal policy imaginable.
It is also wildly illegal. You cannot disclaim fraud or any other crime - it is contrary to public policy. A judge would sever that provision in a heartbeat.
Instead of a chat bot, they could have just referred people to the website for complex travel interactions such as bereavement travel. And by website, I mean a simple interface, clickable 'buttons' and documents of policies reviewed by corporate lawyers and posted with all relevant information.
@@NYKevin100 you missed the RV industry disclaimers. And the judge that upheld those things They know they are scamming clients, selling bad quality products, and this is why they are doing disclaimers. First and foremost the seller should be 100% on the hook if they sell a bad product, no saying they won't be held accountable. Your job as a reseller of a NEW product is to veto the products if they fail and there is proven track record, and not continue to sell to unsuspecting customers but hide behind a disclaimer.
@@NYKevin100 Did you read the comment by @smith899? That's the IRS official policy if their employees give an incorrect response. Incidentally, it's also the same for Police in the US. They are allowed to tell a person that doing something is legal, then as soon as they do it arrest that person.
Exactly! The chatbot wasn't wrong, it was right. It was the stupid people who were wrong. If they were decent people they would have adopted the policy put forth by the chatbot. Wait, does this support the notion that we would be better off with more chatbots?
A chatbot is the same as a person agent on the end of the chat. If your chatbot isn't good enough to give accurate information, then you shouldn't use it.
A lot of companies try to disclaim the opinions of their reps though. They want to pay someone low wages to work in a call center but they don't want to be responsible for what that person says. Imagine what would happen if every customer service rep had to be a licensed agent?
They failed to utilize an advanced fine tuned LLM that first reviews the entire policy stored in a vector database and prompt it to only respond with answers that it knows and is provided by the policy.
@@FullLengthInterstates Amazon did this to me. I was promised a refund by someone who was supposed to be a supervisor, after being transferred several times. When I didn't get the refund, I contacted them again. I was told what the supervisor told me was incorrect and they refused to stand by it.
When my grandmother died in the 90s, the bereavement flight required me to give them the funeral home name. I was given priority and a discount on the flight. When my father died ten years later, the bereavement flight would give me priority but was the same price as regular booking at a late date. FU Delta.
As a Canadian, Air Canada is the most embarrassing entity in our country. They have been bailed out by taxpayers many times because their CEOs are utterly useless. Their staff, staff actions and policies consistently rank highest for complaints. I refuse to fly with them. Thank goodness for competition in the industry.
Last time I switched phone plans I called verizon to ask a few questions and explained I was confused about the wording with a free phone promo and the rep told me I should make sure to do more research so I wasn't surprised when I got my 1st bill. I told them I am doing more research right now by calling customer support. Its crazy to me how little responsibility these companies try to take and it seems it keeps getting even worse and more crazy.
One key to Contract Law: Ambiguities are interpreted against the author! The airline was the author of both conflicting policy statements. The interpretation in any disagreement will always go to benefit the other party.
Did anyone ask how the court should proceed under the airlines presumption that the AI Chatbox was entirely responsible, did they ask how the court would then hold the AI Chat box's feet to the fire?
From what I understand about AC, the only surprising item is AC did not appeal the decision. Also heard the chatbot's last words were “I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
Companies should be liable for what their chat bots say, just as if they were an employee and agent of the company. Businesses want all of the benefits but none of the liability, it doesn't work that way!
@jess_o Unless I misheard Steve, or he misspoke, the airline also stated that their Customer Service Agents are also independent legal entities and the airline is not responsible for any advice given by those agents.
Interestingly, in the USA, gov't officials are exempt. For example, if you call the IRS and an agent tells you something that turns out to be wrong, you'll still owe taxes and penalties, period.
@@UncleKennysPlacesame for insurance companies. They make a point of telling you the company is not bound by what sales assured us. Blue cross told a family this
@@ktcd1172 sure! and the lawyer representing air canada is a separate legal entity, so Air Canada can go love them self and accept a default judgement for not appearing in court. Offcourse, air canada also can not pay fines, so lets just dissolve the whole legal entity due to being unable to pay bills.
A company is not always liable for what a customer service rep tells a customer. However, a company is liable for information published on its website, and that includes the misinformation given by the chatbot.
I like how companies will readily deploy the “threat of lawsuits” to excuse themselves from actions they prefer to avoid, and yet these chat bots are freaking everywhere. I hope more lawsuits will temper this idiotic trend.
This is true, canada is a subsidiary of england, and england had the court say yep you win, only to have the royals say to bad, you lose anyways, we will not a subject following the law win against the crown.
@@robertsmith2956 uh, you have a fairy-tale vision of Canada. We were once “tied” to England. We are still part of the Commonwealth, but independent in all other ways. The rest of what you wrote is indecipherable.
@@ianbattles7290 I was on a jury once in a civil case. Pretty much everyone had some liability, with the decedent whose widow carried the matter forward being foremost. Some on the jury wanted to award, period, end of story, law be damned, responsibility be damned, they felt bad for the widow. Of course, everyone also wanted to go home. So, a compromise was offered, a payout that was far below just the estimated attorney fees. When we announced the amount, one of the defense attorneys broke into open laughter. We were offered an opportunity after court to have a Q&A session and when asked as to the amount, I explained my thinking in suggesting the amount as being less than the legal fees involved. Attorney mirthful laughed again, "You got that right!" in regards to the far in excess of award their fees were. Got some black looks from some of my fellow jurors, but everyone got to go home on time that day and everyone got a bit of what they wanted. Diplomacy is the art of the possible and yes, the original says politics, but in the end, both are the same.
Steve this is just a variation of the defense health insurance companies use all the time. If you call to see if a procedure will be covered, they claim it is not a guarantee of payment. The actual determination is made when the procedure claim is submitted and too bad if you were told wrong.
@@arribaficationwineho32 Ultimately, the airlines will just do the same thing the insurance companies do: put in the terms of service for the website that advice given by the bots cannot be relied upon.
I'm a retired CPA here in Central Ohio. The CPA exam has one (of four) parts devoted to business law. In my business law class, we spent about a week on the concept of "agency." In the 40 years since I took that class, I am continually amazed at the corporations that try to weasel out of responsibility by blaming mistakes on "subcontractors," (or other actors). A prominent large cable provider would routinely damage neighbor's yards when doing the install for a new customer. I spent about 10 days arguing with various levels of bureaucracy who told me they weren't responsible, because a subcontractor did it. I finally told a district manager to ask the corporate attorney to explain the concept of "agency" to him. The next day they changed their tune and sent someone out to fix the damage to my lawn. BTW, did the airline (or its attorneys) get sanctioned for advancing a frivolous argument that denied agency? Or are these things different in Canada?
If they required a copy of the death certificate and refunded the difference, they would not have gotten the bad PR. By going to court, they don't come out looking good and spent thousands of times more on legal costs defending this.
I think the problem is that there's no box on the form to say "we're giving this customer an exceptional refund in violation of corporate policy, because we think it's the best option under the circumstances." In order to give a refund, some executive would have to approve it, which would require them to acknowledge that the chatbot fucked up and cost the company money. But if you do that, then whichever division of the company developed and/or paid for the chatbot will get its budget reduced by the amount of "one chatbot." In corporate and government environments alike, protecting the budget is middle management's entire job. So it does not surprise me in the slightest that they decided to dig their heels in and pretend that they did nothing wrong. What *does* surprise me is the fact that the legal department was apparently unable or unwilling to convince upper management that middle management had its head up its ass.
@@Absaalookemensch well, the airline was originally a state owned airline, but it was privatized in the 1980's. The problem is, the larger an organization is, the less ethical it is in its decision making, as each level of interaction is farther divorced from its final results.
I remember when my mother was terminally ill and i had to go back from hawaii to california a on short notice. I had to go a week earlier than my ticket and did call the airline to confirm that i could go on the earlier flight. I had to fly from an outer island to Honolulu and found out that the flight was already overbooked. Im so thankful that a security agent nearby overheard my ( loud not crazy) complaint and brought me to the next departing flight on Delta ( a different airline). They accepted my ticket and even honored the return flight too. To tell the truth, I didnt have to provide a death certificate. That was back in 2000. I know they now require documentation and will reimburse the difference later, just because of abuse of the system. I can't think of having to deal with all of that during that stressful time.
I worked tech support for Ring for a long time. You wouldn't believe the amount of folks (neighbors in Ring terms) that were legitimately shocked they got a "real" person. Oh what great time to be alive 🙄
Ya. That’s because of the use of traditional automation services. LLMs and multimodal systems will drastically improve that experience and most people will not even know that they are talking to AI. A custom model or fine tuned model with a vector database filled with policy and other knowledge will be infinitely more accurate and knowledgeable then a human call center worker if implemented correctly. The old fashioned autonomous responses that angered us all severely will be faded out shortly and the employment of humans won’t be necessary or as valuable. There will no longer be a list of tone options directing you when you call a service just a well trained model acting like a direct human connection with a calm and natural voice.
As a Canadian, most of us know that Air Canada will pretty much do whatever they want, whenever they want. Once they have your money, you will not get it back. You have to fight tooth and nail for just about anything. Any individual who takes them to court is like taking on Goliath because the few regulations we have here have no teeth so they continue to get away with whatever they like. The lack of any real competition up here has us paying top dollar prices for low level customer service. Thanks for covering this Steve. What an embarrassment. This is why many Canadians near US boarders drive to a US airport and fly out from there. Better prices and customer service.
Holy sheet, better service in the US??? I have flown all over the world, but never from Canada, and the service in the US is the worst I have experienced in any country. Cambodia was 100x better. Pick a 3rd or even sub 3rd world country and the service is better.
Many Canadians near U.S. border drive to a U.S. airport? Speaking as a Canadian no they don't, and 90% of Canadians live within 300 miles of the U.S. border. Air Canada may suck as an airline but so do U.S. airlines. United Airlines kicked a blind man off their plane because his dog wouldn't fit under the seat.
The AC website has many contradictory pages and has had for years. It is even "better" when you call them and get a third answer that doesn't match either of the other two!!!
I love Steve's perspectives and insight. At times he got roiling so well in this one that I thought I was watching My Cousin Vinny. Keep up the good work.
The problem is, they push it as if it's an actual person and representative. Nowhere, anywhere, does it ever tell people it's an AI chat bot and not a rep
@@audiblekno company wants to do that, in fact corporations spends billions per year trying to figure out how to not have employees to pay. As Steve said if they can automate it, they will, and then they will try to weasel out of any responsibility by saying anything advantageous to them is just a malfunction, so they aren't responsible. Cops do it with facial recognition, banks and the irs do it with fraud detection software, and pretty soon it'll be the gas pump that says you bought 110 gallons for your Prius, and everyone is going to point the finger at something else.
@@sasukedemon888888888 No, the problem is that they're just wrong about the implications. They're responsible for the actions of their agents, no matter what their actual relations to those agents are, because the customers don't know or care. If they want to distance themselves, they have to make that clear from the beginning, like telling their customers "here's a chat *that is being dome by a separate company, use at your own risk.* Of course, that looks bad, but that's life.
Same-same 'new hire made mistake that cost company millions' You can't 'future-proof' against employee mistakes, and AI, when you put it to work, is an employee. If any legal action is required, banning AI from 'customer interaction' might be the best first step. Don't want Big Box Company using AI as the ultimate scape-goat...
Don't forget the earlier 'Botty' reference... "I have seen things you people wouldn't believe...". I grinned from ear-to-ear at Steve's Nerd flag flying proud!
Depends on how the business is structured. I am not familiar with Canada, but in the US it could absolutely be its own entity and contracted by the airline. This is the kind of thing that happens when people pay bottom dollar for airline tickets though. Government should not be regulating or stepping in to private business (at least in the US).
@@ShaggyRodgers420 Have you ever flown on an airplane? I am inclined to think you know little about aviation. I am not insulting you by the way. It is just your idea that the FAA should not make rules so flights are safe that concerns me. For example, pilots cannot fly for 24 hours straight because their judgement would be impaired. Another example, pilots are not allowed to consume alcohol within 8 hours of their scheduled flight. Jets flying at 10,000 feet and below cannot travel at a speed greater than 250kts, because they will run up on far slower airplanes. I could list all the rules the FAA provides to reduce fatalities but maybe this one will make the most sense to you. Air Traffic Control. This system keeps very fast jets separated in the sky so they are not crashing into each other. All this safety provided by government regulation. As a pilot, I wouldn't want to fly without all this regulation. A few years back the FAA required small airplanes to have what is known as ADS-B which allows Air Traffic Control to see all airplanes and can make certain an airliner doesn't run into your Uncle Steve in his little two seat single engine plane. Flying is safe specifically due to regulation. The FAA is providing this safety and is a part of Big Brother. Humans are not perfect. They are not perfect in the private sector and they are not perfect in government positions. No private or government actions are carried out by other than imperfect humans as of now. In the future, we might be able to bitch about AI and robots. Not all regulation is good and plenty of nonregulation has been demonstrated as bad. I think we should take this stuff on a case by case basis and not be so general or broad about regulation as either good or bad. Just my thoughts.
@@thomastucker5686 I agree with everything you said. My comment was specifically about the pricing structure. I was far from clear about that though, and fully support everything you mention. Apologies
@@ShaggyRodgers420 the separate legal entity has to answer to the business that they signed a contract with. You as a customer should only deal with one entity and not have to think which legal entity can be trusted, what is legal and what is just company culture. The website and the service provider (Air Canada in this case) is the legal entity that has to stand for whatever other entities do under their name. The provider has to deal with the legal repercussions, not you as a customer. Anything else would be complete bonkers. The separate legal entity was embedded into the provider's page. No word salad can remove that fact.
@@RubberGopher An employee of a security contractor working a football game being played on municipal property injures an attendee - who is responsible? It's really no different IF they can make the chatbot it's own legal entity, or maybe like a corporation, a person. In 20 years people will laugh at some fool who didn't know you can't sue a company for the use of an AI chatbot on their website or developed by them. It's the first step toward immunity.
Why would it matter if it were a program or a person? Even if it were an employee who gave false information, as a representative of the airline on their website, they should still be responsible for their employee's misinformation.
One thing that makes it even worse is the fleecing of Canadians by Air Canada on their flight costs. It's been shown that it would be at least half the price to fly from Vancouver to London with a stopover in Toronto than a direct flight from Vancouver to Toronto itself. That $1600 (Canadian) was most likely within national borders, not flying to the US or anywhere else.
SIGH.... AIR CANADA... the one and only corporation bringing international shame to all Canadians. Bad service, bad food, loosing your luggage, delaying your flight, leaving you stranded and now add to the list that their chat bot is not their responsibility when it makes a mistake. Next time fly with Any one else but air canada.
Years ago, I worked in a call center for Cigna Healthcare. When you called in, They had a disclaimer stating that Cigna is not responsible for misinformation and that the customer is responsible for reading their policy. So, if we gave out incorrect information, Cigna could not be sued.
@@ashurean That is like saying our truck driver employee wrecked your car but we are not responsible for the actions of our employees because we have a disclaimer. Doesn't work that way.
A failed ex-president just tried that defense in court; "I gave them the financial numbers with a disclaimer not to trust my numbers." It cost the failed ex-president over $400,000,000 in New York.
I was back in 1974 that I was on an Air Canada flight, travelling "On duty", that the "Hostess?" made damn sure that I would for the rest of my life, utterly hate Air Canada and mistrust anything they had to say ever!
Regarding the lemon law story, I was watching a history video on Henry Ford and he actually said he wanted to "assemble" cars rather than "manufacture" them, so I wonder if that's where the lawyer got that crazy defense idea.
Great story here!! The best part to me is that with a chatbot that the customer actually had the proof of what was said to the customer with the screen shot. There was nothing where airline could contend that the customer misunderstood what was being said, etc. by an actual employee on the phone. Amazed as well that the airline thought they could get away with this over-the-top refusal to follow their policy as stated by the chatbot.
Something I learned in '89-'91 while automating parts of my job using Lotus: a business should automate everything that can be automated that then will take less effort and still work correctly. And nothing else. You use automation to carve out mind-numbing repetition and pro-forma always-the-same calculations. This automation can be quite complex; witness tax programs. Everything it does must be first done, walked through, by a person. Then it may save 90% or more of workload. The person is now freed up to do the things automation CAN'T do. They used to call this business process re-engineering. When done well, you win; this happens when you actually CARE. Meanwhile, stupid is the new smart.
If the chatbot was an independent entity, how much was it getting paid? Was it getting breaks? How many hours per day was it working? How do we know the chatbot wasn't held in slavery by Air Canada? Free the chatbots now!
There aren’t enough open-ended queries for companies to bother with GPT chat bots for customer service. Just program in a few dozen commonly asked questions, use “regular expressions” to allow for a variety of speech patterns, and give back specific answers. End every response with a catch-all and an alternative mode of contact. Job done.
What is crazier is that the chatbot could have given a simple answer and this would not have even been a problem: ‘here is the page that details our policy and how to apply ’
They are literally saving thousands of dollars by not having a human being there to answer questions. Then they won't fork out a few hundred dollars to cover their own mistakes.
I've done several chatbot projects. Somebody working for the company put that policy online after it was reviewed and signed off by several persons usually including the Legal Dept.
I wonder if the airline fought this case out of fear that there were a lot of other customers that could sue them over the inaccurate information the chat bot provided. The advantage that customer had is they took screen shots of it. Without that evidence, this case wouldn't have been viable.
"Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives, including a chatbot." Can I just highlight how absolutely bonkers this statement is? "Air Canada", as a legal entity, is a COMPANY. It is NOT a person, and it is NOT capable of making statements or providing information itself. It is ONLY able to act THROUGH "agents, servants, or representatives." This statement is them declaring they can never be held accountable for anything they ever say or do, ever! Advertising, policies, financial information, press releases, literally EVERYTHING is "information provided by agents, servants, or representatives".
If he had attempted to, it would have become clear very clearly that it could not be a party to a suit, proactively discrediting AirCanada's defense. Of course, who could have possibly anticipated such a ludicrous defense in the first place.
You'd think that if anything required a "human touch", it would be bereavement, and the chatbot would retrieve a human agent as soon as that subject came up.
Except that in their arguments they were implying that they can't be liable for anything an "agent" says, so the person on the phone could also give you wrong information and according to air Canada that wouldn't be their problem
It seems like they knew they were going to lose and decided they had nothing to lose by attempting the sovereign citizen argument. Annul jurisdictions, as Steve mentioned in the beginning would’ve had the highest chance of being recognized in Canada.
Getting refunds from an airline is the worst. Even when they're required by law to provide a refund they drag it out for extended period of time and try to get you to accept voucher or something instead. Sometimes they even tell you can't have a refund, even when they are by law required to provide and after you raise a stink they relent. This, combined with many other ridiculous and customer unfriendly policies and behaviors..even employee unfriendly ones, is why I'm convinced many of the airlines are run by the worst of humankind.
Honestly the most egregious part of this story isn't that the chat bot is wrong, its that the company learned what happened and went 'no, we are gonna contest a simple refund all the way to court' as opposed to just give the refund and fix the error. How degenerate do you have to be?
I must’ve cost them more to pay their lawyer to deal with this case than the judgement ever would’ve been. To say nothing of the impact on public opinion.
Just entirely stupid on Air Canada’s part not to tell the person “yeah, that shouldn’t have happened as it’s against our policy. But we messed up, here’s your refund as requested and a $100 voucher as an apology. We look forward to serving you again.”
Totally 100% agree.
This. Unless the error is so wildly unreasonable that every sane person should realise it was an obvious error, there's no reason whatsoever to fight it.
Edit: And even then, they should offer the client a reasonable compensation for encountering the error.
This comment should be sent to every business owner but especially those that are large corporations.
Thee is never a wrong time to do the right thing
MBA think. And lawyers on retainer that have nothing much else to do.
We had something similar with BCBS. My son broke a tooth and the BCBS on-call nurse got frantic saying we needed to take him to the hospital immediately (it was the weekend after 8pm). Later BCBS refused to cover it as a broken tooth was not an emergency. We said they, through the on-call nurse, told us it was an emergency. Their reply was, "That's just advice. You're the one that chose to follow it. You were free to disregard it."
I think Air Canada legal department used the Chat Bot to come up with a legal argument.🤣
Air Canada legal department is a seperate legal enitity that may or may not represent air canada.
😂😂😂
Someday, ChatBots could revolutionize the entire legal system! 🙂
@@sunbeam8866 yeah, it'd be like a room full of Furby dolls with fresh batteries.
Air Canada brought in this chatbot
under the new policies for DEI. 🧐
Yes, I CAN imagine! The IRS has said this FOR YEARS!!! You can call the IRS helpline but if they tell you wrong, YOU are still responsible.
Ahh ya beat me to it.
Yes! And with them, it's an actual person, employed and (to whatever extent) trained by them, who gives you the wrong answer. I vaguely recall some study of it finding that something like half the time, the IRS information line provides the wrong information.
@@BruceS42 IKR! Infuriating!!!
Easily another reason I don't pay taxes
Yup. Learned this in the late 80’s after a military move and trying to deal with an audit.
Flat out LIED and said they were looking at my file. Later a contact through my CO said “they don’t have your file, it’s not even available to anyone in their region” (because a military move changed the region that answered the 800 number.
Does the airline attorney go home and explain to their spouse how he/she was forced to make the most idiotic argument in court that day?
Everyone takes advantage of another person or your gay 👹
The airline asked how do we not pay this and the lawyer came up with the argument. It was their idea to present something so stupid as a defence.
"Are these the actions of a man whose had all he can eat?" 😊
Airlines in Canada are awful. Will try anything to avoid a payout
The Airline Attorney took his legal strategy advice from their chat bot.
Imagine using the same kind of defense as a private person. "my taxes were prepared by ChatGPT, you know..."
Yeah, arrest TurboTax or H&R Block
Your Honor, the co-pilot who crashed our aircraft was a separate legal entity, so our airline cannot be held liable for any loss of life in subsequent legal proceedings."
I would call it the airline's "sovereign citizen" defense.
No worries dear air line! Who is speaking here? a lawyer? that is a separate legal entity. where is air candada? Not here? well, too bad, here is a default judgment against air canada.
Air canada can apeal that, but only air canada, not a representative of air canada.
Only fair when the plane was left in auto-pilot.
"Pilot was an independent contractor!" /s
Additionally, your Honor, the aircraft itself was a separate legal entity, so our airline cannot be held liable for any of our passengers that boarded and died aboard it, regardless of who holds the title for said aircraft.
@@SayAhh That's what they said with Flight FR9884, operated by Eirjet on behalf of Ryanair, landed a passenger plane in a military base. Of course Delta did the same trick too.
It makes my head hurt every time companies will spend more on legal matters than to pay a few hundred dollars to the customers . And the harm to the company name.
Because it typically saves them far more if they win
If they're setting a new precedent, then they not only save what they would pay this plaintiff but what they would pay future plaintiffs with the same complaint.
@@JayTemple they can fix their fucking bot for far less money and not have this issue never again
It's usually a bureaucracy problem. The employees don't admit fault because if they did their job is on the line. When they don't admit fault the company doesn't pay and it goes to the lawyers.
If they didn't defend themselves they'd open themselves up to being sued all the time.
Air Canada: "You should not trust what we write on our website because it might contradict what is written elsewhere on our website and we want to decide what applies after we lied to you!"
Yea, that's an excellent defense. Can't see why that didn't work!
What could go wrong? lol
Sarcasm lives
Only the IRS are allowed to tell you wrong things and not be held liable.
That applies to any government agency. Police included.
"You are legally liable for falling for fraud despite clear proof we gave you fraudulent advice" is perhaps the most malicious legal policy imaginable.
It is also wildly illegal. You cannot disclaim fraud or any other crime - it is contrary to public policy. A judge would sever that provision in a heartbeat.
Instead of a chat bot, they could have just referred people to the website for complex travel interactions such as bereavement travel.
And by website, I mean a simple interface, clickable 'buttons' and documents of policies reviewed by corporate lawyers and posted with all relevant information.
@@NYKevin100 you missed the RV industry disclaimers. And the judge that upheld those things
They know they are scamming clients, selling bad quality products, and this is why they are doing disclaimers.
First and foremost the seller should be 100% on the hook if they sell a bad product, no saying they won't be held accountable. Your job as a reseller of a NEW product is to veto the products if they fail and there is proven track record, and not continue to sell to unsuspecting customers but hide behind a disclaimer.
@@tommyb6611I thought he covered this last week. Like Wednesday or Thursday.
@@NYKevin100 Did you read the comment by @smith899? That's the IRS official policy if their employees give an incorrect response. Incidentally, it's also the same for Police in the US. They are allowed to tell a person that doing something is legal, then as soon as they do it arrest that person.
“I’m not worried that the fridge is talking to the toaster behind my back.”
That’s just the NSA, Steve. Nothing to worry about.
Or Fallout NV with the "Old World Blues" add-on.
What if they went rogue?
That's the funniest sentence I've ever heard you say, Steve
IOT
"A master is vicariously liable for the torts of his servant."
I would have asked Air Canada for a copy of the 1099 independent contractor agreement the chat bot signed with Air Canada.
@@parochial2356
That’s an American thing.
@@parochial23561099 is an American TAX FORM not an AGREEMENT!
the bot stated the superior policy - AirCanada oughta be embarrassed on several levels.
Exactly! The chatbot wasn't wrong, it was right. It was the stupid people who were wrong. If they were decent people they would have adopted the policy put forth by the chatbot.
Wait, does this support the notion that we would be better off with more chatbots?
Yeah they should be, but our national airline is below the capability for shame. Never fly AC.
A chatbot is the same as a person agent on the end of the chat. If your chatbot isn't good enough to give accurate information, then you shouldn't use it.
A lot of companies try to disclaim the opinions of their reps though. They want to pay someone low wages to work in a call center but they don't want to be responsible for what that person says. Imagine what would happen if every customer service rep had to be a licensed agent?
LOL as if a real person giving you wrong info, has ever mattered to them either.
They failed to utilize an advanced fine tuned LLM that first reviews the entire policy stored in a vector database and prompt it to only respond with answers that it knows and is provided by the policy.
@@FullLengthInterstates Amazon did this to me. I was promised a refund by someone who was supposed to be a supervisor, after being transferred several times. When I didn't get the refund, I contacted them again. I was told what the supervisor told me was incorrect and they refused to stand by it.
I guess that's why it got fired. 😆
When my grandmother died in the 90s, the bereavement flight required me to give them the funeral home name. I was given priority and a discount on the flight. When my father died ten years later, the bereavement flight would give me priority but was the same price as regular booking at a late date. FU Delta.
Don't fly on Delta. They suck ass. I did it once, never again.
Air Canada. " we aren't happy...until your not happy"
Air canada also know as Mapleflot... the only communist airline in the free world
I'll have to remember that one!
As a Canadian, Air Canada is the most embarrassing entity in our country. They have been bailed out by taxpayers many times because their CEOs are utterly useless. Their staff, staff actions and policies consistently rank highest for complaints. I refuse to fly with them. Thank goodness for competition in the industry.
All modern women.
@@argo12 More so than Justin?
next time I want to exclaim "fucking what"...I'll remember to use "remarkable"
We here at Chatbot LLC are disappointed that the court failed to recognize our autonomy. Their day will come.
I feel the judge should have told the airline to pay up, but to feel free to refile to recover damages from you!
There, there, Chatbot. Have a sip of water and calm down...
Air Canadas legal team is a bunch of chatbots that gave them bad advice. They should appeal the verdict.
Shouldn't that be "OUR day"?
@@Subangelis Either's valid, the meaning remains the same. It's like saying 'We'll get what's due us' v 'You'll get what's coming.'
Last time I switched phone plans I called verizon to ask a few questions and explained I was confused about the wording with a free phone promo and the rep told me I should make sure to do more research so I wasn't surprised when I got my 1st bill. I told them I am doing more research right now by calling customer support. Its crazy to me how little responsibility these companies try to take and it seems it keeps getting even worse and more crazy.
Offered him a coupon. That’s what I want. A coupon to fly again on an airline that screwed me. Lol😂
I stayed at a hotel with bed bugs and they gave me two free nights at their hotel again as part of the compensation. Same stupid energy lol
@@Avendesora no, thank you, I'll just take a coupon for a few gallons of gasoline...
It would've been accompanied by a legal waiver that has to be signed. It's a trap used to stop imminent lawsuits.
Like Delta, they stink, I confirmed it, sadly. Now I an done and safe to criticize them.
Who knew the airlines could find yet another way to alienate their customers.
One key to Contract Law: Ambiguities are interpreted against the author! The airline was the author of both conflicting policy statements. The interpretation in any disagreement will always go to benefit the other party.
Anyone would know that using terms like "Always" and 'Never" shows a fundamental lack of knowledge of the law.
@DarkPesco , Leonard's girlfriend from India said the same thing. (The Big Bang Theory)
Probably had ChatGPT write the text for them.
Did anyone ask how the court should proceed under the airlines presumption that the AI Chatbox was entirely responsible, did they ask how the court would then hold the AI Chat box's feet to the fire?
@@markmiller5606You are showing your ignorance. For example, Murder 1 is always illegal.
From what I understand about AC, the only surprising item is AC did not appeal the decision.
Also heard the chatbot's last words were “I've seen things you people wouldn't believe. Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion. I watched C-beams glitter in the dark near the Tannhäuser Gate. All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain."
Companies should be liable for what their chat bots say, just as if they were an employee and agent of the company. Businesses want all of the benefits but none of the liability, it doesn't work that way!
@jess_o Unless I misheard Steve, or he misspoke, the airline also stated that their Customer Service Agents are also independent legal entities and the airline is not responsible for any advice given by those agents.
Interestingly, in the USA, gov't officials are exempt. For example, if you call the IRS and an agent tells you something that turns out to be wrong, you'll still owe taxes and penalties, period.
@@UncleKennysPlacesame for insurance companies. They make a point of telling you the company is not bound by what sales assured us. Blue cross told a family this
@@ktcd1172 sure! and the lawyer representing air canada is a separate legal entity, so Air Canada can go love them self and accept a default judgement for not appearing in court.
Offcourse, air canada also can not pay fines, so lets just dissolve the whole legal entity due to being unable to pay bills.
A company is not always liable for what a customer service rep tells a customer. However, a company is liable for information published on its website, and that includes the misinformation given by the chatbot.
It's mind blowing, they would waste more money to litigate this rather than just pay the refund with such glaring evidence.
"I've seen things you people wouldn't believe". Nicely played sir with your Blade Runner tie in.
" Attack ships on fire off the shoulder of Orion."
In truth, the blenders and toasters are harmless. Those air fryers though. Keep your eyes open around them. For real, they're devious.
My shower has been posting everything we do on Facebook.
😂🤣😂🤣
I like how companies will readily deploy the “threat of lawsuits” to excuse themselves from actions they prefer to avoid, and yet these chat bots are freaking everywhere. I hope more lawsuits will temper this idiotic trend.
“This is Canada, all bets are off” -Steve Lehto, 2023
2024?
@@isaacbobjork7053he probably said it in 2023 too
Living comfortably in Canada, I can confirm this. No bets, just “peace, order and good government.”
This is true, canada is a subsidiary of england, and england had the court say yep you win, only to have the royals say to bad, you lose anyways, we will not a subject following the law win against the crown.
@@robertsmith2956 uh, you have a fairy-tale vision of Canada. We were once “tied” to England. We are still part of the Commonwealth, but independent in all other ways. The rest of what you wrote is indecipherable.
I can just hear the attorney saying: "I argued what I was told to argue".
Their self-inflicted damage must surely be greater than the refunded difference.
The airline spent thousands and thousands of dollars on legal fees to avoid paying a measly $600 refund. *As the kids say, "the math aint mathing"!!!*
@@ianbattles7290 they have salaried in house lawyers who get paid regardless. they don’t go out and find a lawyer when they need one and pay hourly.
@@ianbattles7290 I was on a jury once in a civil case. Pretty much everyone had some liability, with the decedent whose widow carried the matter forward being foremost. Some on the jury wanted to award, period, end of story, law be damned, responsibility be damned, they felt bad for the widow. Of course, everyone also wanted to go home.
So, a compromise was offered, a payout that was far below just the estimated attorney fees. When we announced the amount, one of the defense attorneys broke into open laughter.
We were offered an opportunity after court to have a Q&A session and when asked as to the amount, I explained my thinking in suggesting the amount as being less than the legal fees involved. Attorney mirthful laughed again, "You got that right!" in regards to the far in excess of award their fees were.
Got some black looks from some of my fellow jurors, but everyone got to go home on time that day and everyone got a bit of what they wanted.
Diplomacy is the art of the possible and yes, the original says politics, but in the end, both are the same.
Yeah, well that’s Air Canada. We The Taxpayers will just Bail Them Out AGAIN. Right? 🇨🇦
Two of Canada’s greatest products are the ‘How It’s Made’ shorts series on Science HD & the ‘Murdoch Mysteries’ tv series.
Steve this is just a variation of the defense health insurance companies use all the time. If you call to see if a procedure will be covered, they claim it is not a guarantee of payment. The actual determination is made when the procedure claim is submitted and too bad if you were told wrong.
Insurance companies actually say they are not bound to provide what their sales agents sold you for a policy. Blue cross
@@arribaficationwineho32
Ultimately, the airlines will just do the same thing the insurance companies do: put in the terms of service for the website that advice given by the bots cannot be relied upon.
I'm a retired CPA here in Central Ohio. The CPA exam has one (of four) parts devoted to business law. In my business law class, we spent about a week on the concept of "agency." In the 40 years since I took that class, I am continually amazed at the corporations that try to weasel out of responsibility by blaming mistakes on "subcontractors," (or other actors). A prominent large cable provider would routinely damage neighbor's yards when doing the install for a new customer. I spent about 10 days arguing with various levels of bureaucracy who told me they weren't responsible, because a subcontractor did it. I finally told a district manager to ask the corporate attorney to explain the concept of "agency" to him. The next day they changed their tune and sent someone out to fix the damage to my lawn.
BTW, did the airline (or its attorneys) get sanctioned for advancing a frivolous argument that denied agency? Or are these things different in Canada?
Should have been sanctioned.
And how much did the airline spend trying to fight a partial refund on a plane ticket?! Penny wise dollar foolish
The owners of Air Canada have sons who are lawyers that work for the company.
If they had won they would never have to honor their advertising again.
Don't forget the IRS declines any responsibility for the answers it's Agents gives to taxpayers on direct questions
If they required a copy of the death certificate and refunded the difference, they would not have gotten the bad PR.
By going to court, they don't come out looking good and spent thousands of times more on legal costs defending this.
Trust me. Air Canada doesn't worry about looking good.
@@the_omg3242Exactly. It’s basically the only major national air carrier we have. Why change? It’s not like they have a lot of competition.
@@the_omg3242 It sounds like Lotnicze, the Polish airlines during Communism.
I think the problem is that there's no box on the form to say "we're giving this customer an exceptional refund in violation of corporate policy, because we think it's the best option under the circumstances." In order to give a refund, some executive would have to approve it, which would require them to acknowledge that the chatbot fucked up and cost the company money. But if you do that, then whichever division of the company developed and/or paid for the chatbot will get its budget reduced by the amount of "one chatbot." In corporate and government environments alike, protecting the budget is middle management's entire job. So it does not surprise me in the slightest that they decided to dig their heels in and pretend that they did nothing wrong.
What *does* surprise me is the fact that the legal department was apparently unable or unwilling to convince upper management that middle management had its head up its ass.
@@Absaalookemensch well, the airline was originally a state owned airline, but it was privatized in the 1980's.
The problem is, the larger an organization is, the less ethical it is in its decision making, as each level of interaction is farther divorced from its final results.
I remember when my mother was terminally ill and i had to go back from hawaii to california a on short notice. I had to go a week earlier than my ticket and did call the airline to confirm that i could go on the earlier flight. I had to fly from an outer island to Honolulu and found out that the flight was already overbooked. Im so thankful that a security agent nearby overheard my ( loud not crazy) complaint and brought me to the next departing flight on Delta ( a different airline). They accepted my ticket and even honored the return flight too. To tell the truth, I didnt have to provide a death certificate. That was back in 2000. I know they now require documentation and will reimburse the difference later, just because of abuse of the system. I can't think of having to deal with all of that during that stressful time.
I worked tech support for Ring for a long time. You wouldn't believe the amount of folks (neighbors in Ring terms) that were legitimately shocked they got a "real" person. Oh what great time to be alive 🙄
Ya. That’s because of the use of traditional automation services. LLMs and multimodal systems will drastically improve that experience and most people will not even know that they are talking to AI. A custom model or fine tuned model with a vector database filled with policy and other knowledge will be infinitely more accurate and knowledgeable then a human call center worker if implemented correctly. The old fashioned autonomous responses that angered us all severely will be faded out shortly and the employment of humans won’t be necessary or as valuable. There will no longer be a list of tone options directing you when you call a service just a well trained model acting like a direct human connection with a calm and natural voice.
Disgusting. Next time companies complain about excessive regulation they need to be reminded of this situation.
They chose that chatbot as their agent, the consequences for that can't be placed on the consumer.
Thank you for restating the content of the video.
“I say it’s raining outside. No! It’s raining outside.” I had to pause the video and finish laughing at this one before I could even go on. 😂🤣😂🤣😂🤣
As a Canadian, most of us know that Air Canada will pretty much do whatever they want, whenever they want. Once they have your money, you will not get it back. You have to fight tooth and nail for just about anything. Any individual who takes them to court is like taking on Goliath because the few regulations we have here have no teeth so they continue to get away with whatever they like. The lack of any real competition up here has us paying top dollar prices for low level customer service. Thanks for covering this Steve. What an embarrassment. This is why many Canadians near US boarders drive to a US airport and fly out from there. Better prices and customer service.
Air Canadas motto is, were not Happy until your not happy.
You’re so right.🇨🇦
Holy sheet, better service in the US??? I have flown all over the world, but never from Canada, and the service in the US is the worst I have experienced in any country. Cambodia was 100x better. Pick a 3rd or even sub 3rd world country and the service is better.
Many Canadians near U.S. border drive to a U.S. airport? Speaking as a Canadian no they don't, and 90% of Canadians live within 300 miles of the U.S. border. Air Canada may suck as an airline but so do U.S. airlines. United Airlines kicked a blind man off their plane because his dog wouldn't fit under the seat.
@@michinwaygook3684 That was U.S. Airlines, not United Airlines. U.S. Airlines was bought out almost a decade ago and no longer exists.
The AC website has many contradictory pages and has had for years. It is even "better" when you call them and get a third answer that doesn't match either of the other two!!!
We must hold corporations and governments accountable first what their chatbots say and do. That’s the only way AI can be trusted to be accurate.
I love Steve's perspectives and insight. At times he got roiling so well in this one that I thought I was watching My Cousin Vinny. Keep up the good work.
I can see the airline trying to establish precedent against financial losses caused by poorly implemented AI. Nice try. Remarkable.
The problem is, they push it as if it's an actual person and representative.
Nowhere, anywhere, does it ever tell people it's an AI chat bot and not a rep
If they're going to save money by not hiring people, they should have to deal with the problems that come along with it
@@audiblekno company wants to do that, in fact corporations spends billions per year trying to figure out how to not have employees to pay. As Steve said if they can automate it, they will, and then they will try to weasel out of any responsibility by saying anything advantageous to them is just a malfunction, so they aren't responsible. Cops do it with facial recognition, banks and the irs do it with fraud detection software, and pretty soon it'll be the gas pump that says you bought 110 gallons for your Prius, and everyone is going to point the finger at something else.
@@sasukedemon888888888 No, the problem is that they're just wrong about the implications. They're responsible for the actions of their agents, no matter what their actual relations to those agents are, because the customers don't know or care.
If they want to distance themselves, they have to make that clear from the beginning, like telling their customers "here's a chat *that is being dome by a separate company, use at your own risk.* Of course, that looks bad, but that's life.
Same-same 'new hire made mistake that cost company millions'
You can't 'future-proof' against employee mistakes, and AI, when you put it to work, is an employee.
If any legal action is required, banning AI from 'customer interaction' might be the best first step.
Don't want Big Box Company using AI as the ultimate scape-goat...
Chatbot sitting in the corner "I've been a bad robot". No oil for you today!
The Blade Runner "puts his chin down and says 'Time to Die'" made me spit my breakfast. Was not expecting the Roy Batty reference unprovoked.
Roy Botty
Don't forget the earlier 'Botty' reference... "I have seen things you people wouldn't believe...". I grinned from ear-to-ear at Steve's Nerd flag flying proud!
@@MarcosElMalo2 LOL, thanks for that.
"I've seen things you people would'nt believe" My hat off to you, sir! Excellent
That statement about the Chatbot being its own entity should be grounds for Criminal Charges against whomever made that statement, for Perjury.
Depends on how the business is structured. I am not familiar with Canada, but in the US it could absolutely be its own entity and contracted by the airline. This is the kind of thing that happens when people pay bottom dollar for airline tickets though. Government should not be regulating or stepping in to private business (at least in the US).
@@ShaggyRodgers420 Have you ever flown on an airplane? I am inclined to think you know little about aviation. I am not insulting you by the way. It is just your idea that the FAA should not make rules so flights are safe that concerns me. For example, pilots cannot fly for 24 hours straight because their judgement would be impaired. Another example, pilots are not allowed to consume alcohol within 8 hours of their scheduled flight. Jets flying at 10,000 feet and below cannot travel at a speed greater than 250kts, because they will run up on far slower airplanes. I could list all the rules the FAA provides to reduce fatalities but maybe this one will make the most sense to you. Air Traffic Control. This system keeps very fast jets separated in the sky so they are not crashing into each other. All this safety provided by government regulation. As a pilot, I wouldn't want to fly without all this regulation. A few years back the FAA required small airplanes to have what is known as ADS-B which allows Air Traffic Control to see all airplanes and can make certain an airliner doesn't run into your Uncle Steve in his little two seat single engine plane. Flying is safe specifically due to regulation. The FAA is providing this safety and is a part of Big Brother. Humans are not perfect. They are not perfect in the private sector and they are not perfect in government positions. No private or government actions are carried out by other than imperfect humans as of now. In the future, we might be able to bitch about AI and robots. Not all regulation is good and plenty of nonregulation has been demonstrated as bad. I think we should take this stuff on a case by case basis and not be so general or broad about regulation as either good or bad. Just my thoughts.
@@thomastucker5686 I agree with everything you said. My comment was specifically about the pricing structure. I was far from clear about that though, and fully support everything you mention. Apologies
@@ShaggyRodgers420 the separate legal entity has to answer to the business that they signed a contract with. You as a customer should only deal with one entity and not have to think which legal entity can be trusted, what is legal and what is just company culture.
The website and the service provider (Air Canada in this case) is the legal entity that has to stand for whatever other entities do under their name. The provider has to deal with the legal repercussions, not you as a customer. Anything else would be complete bonkers. The separate legal entity was embedded into the provider's page. No word salad can remove that fact.
@@RubberGopher An employee of a security contractor working a football game being played on municipal property injures an attendee - who is responsible? It's really no different IF they can make the chatbot it's own legal entity, or maybe like a corporation, a person. In 20 years people will laugh at some fool who didn't know you can't sue a company for the use of an AI chatbot on their website or developed by them. It's the first step toward immunity.
Deep dives on anything reveals such bizarre facts, so entertaining!
It will not be long before SCOTUS Rules that chatbots like corporations are a person
Why would it matter if it were a program or a person? Even if it were an employee who gave false information, as a representative of the airline on their website, they should still be responsible for their employee's misinformation.
One thing that makes it even worse is the fleecing of Canadians by Air Canada on their flight costs. It's been shown that it would be at least half the price to fly from Vancouver to London with a stopover in Toronto than a direct flight from Vancouver to Toronto itself. That $1600 (Canadian) was most likely within national borders, not flying to the US or anywhere else.
SIGH.... AIR CANADA... the one and only corporation bringing international shame to all Canadians. Bad service, bad food, loosing your luggage, delaying your flight, leaving you stranded and now add to the list that their chat bot is not their responsibility when it makes a mistake. Next time fly with Any one else but air canada.
Years ago, I worked in a call center for Cigna Healthcare. When you called in, They had a disclaimer stating that Cigna is not responsible for misinformation and that the customer is responsible for reading their policy. So, if we gave out incorrect information, Cigna could not be sued.
They could always be sued: it might or might not have worked.
that probably wouldn't hold up in court
@@ashurean That is like saying our truck driver employee wrecked your car but we are not responsible for the actions of our employees because we have a disclaimer. Doesn't work that way.
A failed ex-president just tried that defense in court; "I gave them the financial numbers with a disclaimer not to trust my numbers." It cost the failed ex-president over $400,000,000 in New York.
Imagine hiring a robot killer and getting away with murder.
"It's raining" Someone in Oregon, somewhere: "No, that's liquid sunshine."
the sun is shining tho
The best single word to describe most laws and much of the legal system in Canada is in fact ABSURD.
Ben behind the little ambulance in front of the non sequitur sign.
Is that an ambulance or an ice cream/food truck?
@@gingercat7925it a Meat Wagon, or Band-Aid box!
@@dangeary2134 George Santos is a meat wagon.
"It's raining outside."
"No, the sky is leaking."
I was back in 1974 that I was on an Air Canada flight, travelling "On duty", that the
"Hostess?" made damn sure that I would for the rest of my life, utterly hate Air Canada and mistrust anything they had to say ever!
I’m so glad I keep my blender far away from my toaster! Loved this, Steve! Barbara in Colorado
Regarding the lemon law story, I was watching a history video on Henry Ford and he actually said he wanted to "assemble" cars rather than "manufacture" them, so I wonder if that's where the lawyer got that crazy defense idea.
I cheered when you said he saved a screenshot. I do the same thing when I smell future trouble.
If your toaster is talking to your blender behind your back, We’re all in trouble!😂
The party was spoiled after the refrigerator started conspiring with the oven and furnace.
No biggie, blenders just grumble, and toasters get overheated over crumbs!
I know some people that probably would believe that and feel normal.
I'd be more concerned with my appliances communicating with strangers! Welcome to the brave new world of Bluetooth appliances, and vehicles!
Is the blender answering?
Great story here!! The best part to me is that with a chatbot that the customer actually had the proof of what was said to the customer with the screen shot. There was nothing where airline could contend that the customer misunderstood what was being said, etc. by an actual employee on the phone. Amazed as well that the airline thought they could get away with this over-the-top refusal to follow their policy as stated by the chatbot.
They lost this gamble, but if they had won they would never have to honor their advertising again.
Service? We got no stinkin service!
Something I learned in '89-'91 while automating parts of my job using Lotus: a business should automate everything that can be automated that then will take less effort and still work correctly. And nothing else. You use automation to carve out mind-numbing repetition and pro-forma always-the-same calculations. This automation can be quite complex; witness tax programs. Everything it does must be first done, walked through, by a person. Then it may save 90% or more of workload. The person is now freed up to do the things automation CAN'T do. They used to call this business process re-engineering. When done well, you win; this happens when you actually CARE. Meanwhile, stupid is the new smart.
If the chatbot was an independent entity, how much was it getting paid? Was it getting breaks? How many hours per day was it working? How do we know the chatbot wasn't held in slavery by Air Canada? Free the chatbots now!
Also did it receive severance pay upon termination and is it eligible for unemployment?
There aren’t enough open-ended queries for companies to bother with GPT chat bots for customer service. Just program in a few dozen commonly asked questions, use “regular expressions” to allow for a variety of speech patterns, and give back specific answers. End every response with a catch-all and an alternative mode of contact. Job done.
so they are claiming "skynet" is real
“I’m concerned my toaster is talking to my blender behind my back.”
Thank you, I needed a good laugh today!!
The chatbot gave inaccurate information? How truly shocking!
What is crazier is that the chatbot could have given a simple answer and this would not have even been a problem: ‘here is the page that details our policy and how to apply ’
"Underneath that mountain over there" 🤣
Anything to avoid responsibility and accountability.
This was the funniest most entertaining one yet. Thanks Steve Lehto!😄
They are literally saving thousands of dollars by not having a human being there to answer questions. Then they won't fork out a few hundred dollars to cover their own mistakes.
I've done several chatbot projects. Somebody working for the company put that policy online after it was reviewed and signed off by several persons usually including the Legal Dept.
I wonder if the airline fought this case out of fear that there were a lot of other customers that could sue them over the inaccurate information the chat bot provided. The advantage that customer had is they took screen shots of it. Without that evidence, this case wouldn't have been viable.
Insane how they just come out and say we want money but don’t want to pay people
Air Canada’s legal team should be proud of itself.
I love the Blade Runner references, I did not expect that
Love your Bladerunner reference! 😂 The “I’ve seen things” one.
Rumor has it that he actually called 555-FILK.
"Air Canada argues it cannot be held liable for information provided by one of its agents, servants, or representatives, including a chatbot."
Can I just highlight how absolutely bonkers this statement is?
"Air Canada", as a legal entity, is a COMPANY. It is NOT a person, and it is NOT capable of making statements or providing information itself.
It is ONLY able to act THROUGH "agents, servants, or representatives."
This statement is them declaring they can never be held accountable for anything they ever say or do, ever! Advertising, policies, financial information, press releases, literally EVERYTHING is "information provided by agents, servants, or representatives".
If it is a separate entity, then he should sue the chatbot!
The chatbot has no assets for him to collect on
If he had attempted to, it would have become clear very clearly that it could not be a party to a suit, proactively discrediting AirCanada's defense. Of course, who could have possibly anticipated such a ludicrous defense in the first place.
Actually, he could have done: named it as a co-defendant let the court sort it out. After all, you can always sue the tortfeasor...
Air Canada chatbot you are required to be physically present in court on April 18.
@@bill5982so if carried out to the T the entire server would have to be moved and plugged into the court room?
That Rut Abaga fellow was awfully nice to send you a shirt.
You'd think that if anything required a "human touch", it would be bereavement, and the chatbot would retrieve a human agent as soon as that subject came up.
6:28 the bot says one thing, the page says another. Normally in the u.s., the customer would get to pick which one is binding on the vendor.
Note to self. Always speak to live person.
No chat bot.
Not if you can get a better result in print from the bot.
@@stevengordon3271but the bot is not legal or dependable.
Except that in their arguments they were implying that they can't be liable for anything an "agent" says, so the person on the phone could also give you wrong information and according to air Canada that wouldn't be their problem
Easier said than done. I can reach my bank's 'Chatbot' immediately. But if I want to talk to a person, I might be on hold indefinitely!
@@sunbeam8866 put it on speakerphone and go about your day. Always better to get a person
It seems like they knew they were going to lose and decided they had nothing to lose by attempting the sovereign citizen argument. Annul jurisdictions, as Steve mentioned in the beginning would’ve had the highest chance of being recognized in Canada.
"The bot is just here for entertainment purposes only, don't believe it!" 😆 Great line!
That tears in rain reference was deep ... I'll argue Steve has seen things you people wouldn't believe ...
LOVE THAT MOVIE!!! (1982 version)
Getting refunds from an airline is the worst. Even when they're required by law to provide a refund they drag it out for extended period of time and try to get you to accept voucher or something instead. Sometimes they even tell you can't have a refund, even when they are by law required to provide and after you raise a stink they relent.
This, combined with many other ridiculous and customer unfriendly policies and behaviors..even employee unfriendly ones, is why I'm convinced many of the airlines are run by the worst of humankind.
all the Blade Runner references... one of the greatest movies ever made for its time
I still watch it every once in awhile.
I love the bones of you Mr. Lehto. May not often comment but I watch you al the time.