In Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149, a British Columbia tribunal held the airline liable for negligent misrepresentation after its website chatbot gave wrong advice about bereavement fares. It rejected the argument that the chatbot was a separate entity. The award was small, but the reasoning is widely cited.
The facts
According to a Mondaq summary of the decision, Mr. Moffatt booked a flight to Toronto after his grandmother died and asked the chatbot about bereavement fares. The chatbot said he could request a reduced fare retroactively by submitting a refund application within 90 days of ticket issue.
He applied within a week of travelling, with a death certificate. Air Canada denied the request because bereavement fares cannot be claimed retroactively. In a February 2023 email, an airline representative acknowledged the chatbot had given "misleading words" and said the airline would update it. He still could not get a partial refund, so he filed a claim with the tribunal.
The arguments and the ruling
Tribunal member Christopher C. Rivers rejected two defenses:
- The chatbot is a separate entity. Air Canada argued it could not be liable for what the chatbot said. The member reasoned that the chatbot is part of the airline's website.
- The policy page was controlling. The airline pointed to a linked page with the correct policy. The member found no reason the policy page should be trusted over the chatbot, or why a customer should have to cross check.
The tribunal found that Air Canada owed a duty of care to chatbot users, failed to take reasonable care to ensure accuracy, and was liable for negligent misrepresentation.
The amounts
The Mondaq summary lists $650.88 in damages, which is the difference between the bereavement fare and the price paid, plus $36.14 in pre judgment interest and $125 in tribunal fees, for $812.02 in total. Use the decision text itself if you need exact numbers.
What it means for teams that run chatbots
This was a small claims tribunal, not an appeals court, so it is not binding everywhere. Treat it as a signal of how a decision maker may think, not as settled law, and ask your own counsel what applies in your jurisdiction.
The practical points are clear enough:
- Assume you own what the bot says. A user has no reason to doubt one part of your site over another.
- Keep one source of truth. If the bot and the policy page can disagree, fix the pipeline, not only the page.
- Fix known errors fast. The airline had acknowledged the error in early 2023.
- Test policy questions. Refunds, fees, deadlines and eligibility are the cases where a wrong answer costs money. See how to test a public chatbot for wrong answers before launch.
Quick check
Did the tribunal accept that the chatbot was separate from the airline?
No. As summarized, the member reasoned that the chatbot is part of the airline's website.
Is this ruling binding on courts elsewhere?
No. It is a tribunal decision. Treat it as an example and take legal advice for your situation.
Sources
Last reviewed: 19 October 2026.
