[Zak]

Courts probably aren't going to enforce any promise of money for nothing or responses prompted by obvious trickery, but they might enforce promises of discounts, and are very likely to enforce promises of rebates as the court in this case did.

If that means companies can't use chatbots to replace customer service agents yet, so be it.

[AnthonyMouse]

> Courts probably aren't going to enforce any promise of money for nothing or responses prompted by obvious trickery, but they might enforce promises of discounts, and are very likely to enforce promises of rebates as the court in this case did.

But what does that matter? So someone posts on Reddit how to trick the chatbot into offering a rebate and then 75% of their customers have done it by the time they realize what's going on and now they're out of business.

> If that means companies can't use chatbots to replace customer service agents yet, so be it.

You're still not articulating any way to distinguish "customer service" from any other functioning chatbot. A general purpose chatbot will answer customer service questions, so how does this not just ban all of them?