Who answers for the chatbot?

A customer whose grandmother had just died asked Air Canada’s website chatbot about bereavement fares. The chatbot told him he could book now and claim the discount later. The airline’s own policy page said the opposite. When he asked for the discount, the airline refused.

He took the case to a tribunal in British Columbia. Air Canada argued that the chatbot was a separate entity responsible for its own words.

In February 2024 the tribunal rejected Air Canada’s argument. The chatbot is part of the airline’s website, it ruled, so the airline answers for what it says. Air Canada was found to carry liability (show definition) and had to pay $650.88 in damages, plus interest and fees.

This case had a clear answer. Many don’t. When an AI system causes harm, the builder may blame the data, and the company using it may blame the builder. The person harmed may have nowhere to appeal. That is the accountability gap (show definition): harm happens and no one is clearly answerable for it.

Rules are supposed to close that gap. In this module you will see who writes the rules for AI right now and why those rules keep arriving late. You will also find where you fit in.