[jeffbee]

I don't even see how this is a big story. An expressed representation about what a product is or does, how it works, and the terms of sale in consumer contexts are binding on the seller. It is the same in America. If you go into a store and they say that you can return it if you don't like it, then you can. If you buy a TV and the guy at the store tells you it also makes pancakes, you can get your money back if it turns out that it does not make pancakes. This is true even if the representation is made by some 16-year-old kid working at Best Buy. By extension it would still be true even if it is made be an automaton.

[acdha]

The interest in this story comes from the fact that Air Canada tried to fight it using the argument that they aren’t liable for anything their agents say. Businesses around the world are so eager to start laying people off that it’s almost certain that they will not be the only ones to try a variation on that claim. I see the important point being reinforcing liability laws and especially not allowing them to shirk responsibility with disclaimers — otherwise we’ll just see more companies cut staffing on their phone support to force people to use a system with a “you are responsible for checking everything this chat bot says for accuracy” notice.

[jeffbee]

I mean, they're welcome to try, and this can't be the first attempt. But there's plenty of jurisprudence at least in the USA that you can't disclaim expressed representations.