{ "schemaVersion": "2.0", "generatedAt": "2026-09-12T13:44:57.278Z", "compatibility": { "legacyMatterFieldsRetained": true, "issueDocumentsAreNotTimelineEvents": true }, "matter": { "id": "matter-40", "slug": "moffatt-v-air-canada", "titleZh": "Moffatt 诉加拿大航空聊天机器人案", "formalName": "Moffatt v. Air Canada", "aliases": [ "Air Canada chatbot case", "2024 BCCRT 149" ], "summary": "加拿大航空网站聊天机器人向乘客提供错误的丧亲票价信息。卑诗省民事解决审裁处认定航空公司应对网站信息负责并赔偿差额。", "professionalSummary": "2024 BCCRT 149 依据过失性失实陈述处理；裁判没有认定聊天机器人具有独立法律人格，也没有建立一般性的生成式 AI 产品责任规则。", "whyItMatters": "它用传统代理与失实陈述原则清楚回答了企业能否把错误归咎于自己的聊天机器人。", "status": "decided", "primaryTopic": "consumer-protection", "secondaryTopics": [ "professional-responsibility" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action" ], "jurisdiction": "加拿大·不列颠哥伦比亚省民事解决审裁处", "industries": [ "航空", "客户服务" ], "significance": { "legalNovelty": 24, "impactScope": 21, "institutionalLevel": 13, "crossBorder": 6, "sustainedCoverage": 15, "total": 79 }, "highProfile": true, "featured": true, "firstPublishedAt": "2026-07-15", "lastUpdatedAt": "2026-07-16", "proceedings": [ { "id": "matter-40:proceeding-1", "matterId": "matter-40", "formalName": "Moffatt v. Air Canada", "identifier": "2024 BCCRT 149", "identifiers": { "neutralCitation": "2024 BCCRT 149" }, "forum": "Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia", "jurisdiction": "加拿大·不列颠哥伦比亚省民事解决审裁处", "type": "small-claims", "stage": "judgment", "status": "decided", "startedAt": "2024-02-14", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "officialUrl": "https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2024/2024bccrt149/2024bccrt149.html" } ], "events": [ { "id": "matter-40:event-1", "matterId": "matter-40", "proceedingId": "matter-40:proceeding-1", "date": "2024-02-14", "type": "judgment", "title": "审裁处裁定加拿大航空承担赔偿责任", "summary": "审裁处认定加拿大航空未尽合理注意确保聊天机器人信息准确，并判给乘客相应损失。", "documentIds": [ "matter-40:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-40:claim-1", "matter-40:claim-procedure", "matter-40:claim-event" ] } ], "documents": [ { "id": "matter-40:document-1", "familyId": "matter-40:family-1", "matterId": "matter-40", "eventId": "matter-40:event-1", "title": "Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149", "originalTitle": "Moffatt v. Air Canada, 2024 BCCRT 149", "url": "https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bccrt/doc/2024/2024bccrt149/2024bccrt149.html", "kind": "official-document", "sourceId": "canlii", "publishedAt": "2024-02-14", "primaryOrSecondary": "primary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "neutralCitation": "2024 BCCRT 149" }, "language": "en" } ], "claims": [ { "id": "matter-40:claim-1", "matterId": "matter-40", "eventId": "matter-40:event-1", "text": "审裁处认定加拿大航空未尽合理注意确保聊天机器人信息准确，并判给乘客相应损失。", "kind": "legal-holding", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-40:document-1" ], "asOf": "2024-02-14" }, { "id": "matter-40:claim-procedure", "matterId": "matter-40", "eventId": "matter-40:event-1", "text": "2024 BCCRT 149 是本站记录的正式程序编号，程序由 Civil Resolution Tribunal of British Columbia 处理。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-40:document-1" ], "asOf": "2024-02-14" }, { "id": "matter-40:claim-event", "matterId": "matter-40", "eventId": "matter-40:event-1", "text": "2024-02-14，案卷记录“审裁处裁定加拿大航空承担赔偿责任”这一程序节点；该日期与事件由所引直接材料支持。", "kind": "procedural-fact", "status": "confirmed", "documentIds": [ "matter-40:document-1" ], "asOf": "2024-02-14" } ], "caseBackground": { "narrativeZh": "加拿大航空网站聊天机器人向乘客 Moffatt 提供错误的丧亲票价信息。Moffatt 依该信息购票后无法按机器人所述规则取得优惠，遂向不列颠哥伦比亚省民事解决审裁处提出小额索赔；审裁处在 2024 BCCRT 149 中认定加拿大航空承担责任。", "partiesZh": [ "申请人：Moffatt", "被申请人：Air Canada" ], "aiSystemZh": "加拿大航空网站客户服务聊天机器人", "challengedConductZh": "聊天机器人向消费者提供错误的丧亲票价与申请规则信息。", "allegedHarmZh": "Moffatt 主张依赖错误信息后承担了本可避免的票价损失。", "proceduralOriginZh": "Moffatt 向不列颠哥伦比亚省民事解决审裁处提出小额索赔；审裁处于 2024 年 2 月 14 日作出 2024 BCCRT 149。", "claimIds": [ "matter-40:claim-1", "matter-40:claim-procedure", "matter-40:claim-event" ], "documentIds": [ "matter-40:document-1" ] }, "issues": [ { "id": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility", "matterId": "matter-40", "titleZh": "企业能否把错误归咎于自己的聊天机器人", "questionZh": "加拿大航空是否应对其网站聊天机器人发布的错误信息负责？", "contextZh": "聊天机器人是企业向消费者提供信息的渠道，系统自动生成并不使其脱离企业网站。", "topic": "consumer-protection", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "审裁处认定加拿大航空应对网站信息负责，不能把聊天机器人当作独立于企业的主体。", "claimIds": [ "matter-40:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility:position-1", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility", "sideZh": "Moffatt", "positionZh": "主张有权依赖加拿大航空网站聊天机器人提供的票价信息。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility:position-2", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility", "sideZh": "加拿大航空", "positionZh": "案件争议涉及将错误归于聊天机器人；底库未收录其完整抗辩文本。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation", "matterId": "matter-40", "titleZh": "聊天机器人错误信息构成过失性失实陈述", "questionZh": "错误丧亲票价信息是否构成加拿大航空未尽合理注意的过失性失实陈述？", "contextZh": "审裁处使用传统失实陈述与注意义务规则，而没有为 AI 输出另设免责标准。", "topic": "professional-responsibility", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "审裁处认定加拿大航空未尽合理注意确保聊天机器人信息准确。", "claimIds": [ "matter-40:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation:position-1", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation", "sideZh": "Moffatt", "positionZh": "主张错误信息来自加拿大航空网站并可被合理依赖。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation:position-2", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation", "sideZh": "加拿大航空", "positionZh": "底库未记录其能够证明已采取合理准确性保障。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss", "matterId": "matter-40", "titleZh": "消费者依赖与票价损失", "questionZh": "Moffatt 是否因依赖聊天机器人信息而产生可赔偿的票价差额损失？", "contextZh": "责任不仅需要信息错误，还需把消费者的合理依赖与具体经济损失连接起来。", "topic": "consumer-protection", "status": "resolved", "courtTreatmentZh": "审裁处认定 Moffatt 有相应损失，并判给与错误信息造成的票价差额相应的赔偿。", "claimIds": [ "matter-40:claim-1" ], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss:position-1", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss", "sideZh": "Moffatt", "positionZh": "主张按错误规则购票后未能获得丧亲票价，产生票价差额。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss:position-2", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss", "sideZh": "加拿大航空", "positionZh": "底库未收录其对具体依赖或损失金额的完整答辩。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] }, { "id": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule", "matterId": "matter-40", "titleZh": "裁判没有赋予聊天机器人独立人格", "questionZh": "本案是否把聊天机器人视为独立法律主体并由其自行承担责任？", "contextZh": "企业责任建立在其网站信息和注意义务上，不需要先回答 AI 是否具有法律人格。", "topic": "professional-responsibility", "status": "open", "claimIds": [], "positions": [ { "id": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule:position-1", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule", "sideZh": "审裁处的责任路径", "positionZh": "直接以加拿大航空对自身网站信息的责任处理。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] }, { "id": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule:position-2", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule", "sideZh": "独立人格命题", "positionZh": "本案没有采用由聊天机器人独立承担责任的理论。", "claimIds": [], "documentIds": [] } ] } ], "decisions": [ { "id": "matter-40:decision-1", "matterId": "matter-40", "proceedingId": "matter-40:proceeding-1", "eventId": "matter-40:event-1", "date": "2024-02-14", "outcomeZh": "不列颠哥伦比亚省民事解决审裁处认定加拿大航空应对聊天机器人错误信息负责，并判给 Moffatt 相应损失。", "holdingsZh": [ "加拿大航空对其网站聊天机器人发布的信息承担责任。", "加拿大航空未尽合理注意确保丧亲票价信息准确，构成过失性失实陈述。", "Moffatt 因依赖错误信息产生的相应损失可获赔偿。" ], "reasoningZh": [ "聊天机器人是加拿大航空网站的一部分，企业不能通过把信息渠道描述为独立系统而免除自身责任。", "传统的注意义务、失实陈述、依赖和损失规则足以处理本案，无需赋予聊天机器人独立法律人格。" ], "reliefZh": "审裁处判给 Moffatt 与错误丧亲票价信息造成的相应损失；现有底库未列明具体金额。", "scopeAndLimitsZh": "裁判针对加拿大航空网站的具体错误票价信息，不建立一般性的生成式 AI 产品责任或 AI 法律人格规则。", "precedentialWeight": "persuasive", "appealStatusZh": "审裁处于 2024 年 2 月 14 日作出 2024 BCCRT 149；底库未记录复审或上诉，裁判作为说服性材料展示。", "documentIds": [ "matter-40:document-1" ], "claimIds": [ "matter-40:claim-1" ] } ], "issueDocumentLinks": [ { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-company-responsibility-knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility", "documentId": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "relationship": "empirical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供法律幻觉发生率和分布的系统证据，支持专业核验的重要性，但不直接决定个案制裁。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-company-responsibility-knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility", "documentId": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于分析采购者、专业人士和其他人类使用者在依赖 AI 辅助决定时的注意义务与可预见性。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-40-matter-40:issue-company-responsibility-news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility", "documentId": "news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为自主或适应性代理造成语言和交易伤害时的开发者、使用者、保险与主体责任提供开放性框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "uncertain", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation-knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation", "documentId": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于分析采购者、专业人士和其他人类使用者在依赖 AI 辅助决定时的注意义务与可预见性。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation-knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation", "documentId": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "relationship": "empirical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供法律幻觉发生率和分布的系统证据，支持专业核验的重要性，但不直接决定个案制裁。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-40-matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation-news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation", "documentId": "news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为自主或适应性代理造成语言和交易伤害时的开发者、使用者、保险与主体责任提供开放性框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "uncertain", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-reliance-loss-knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss", "documentId": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "relationship": "empirical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供法律幻觉发生率和分布的系统证据，支持专业核验的重要性，但不直接决定个案制裁。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-reliance-loss-knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss", "documentId": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于分析采购者、专业人士和其他人类使用者在依赖 AI 辅助决定时的注意义务与可预见性。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-40-matter-40:issue-reliance-loss-news-context-products-liability-ai", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss", "documentId": "news-context-products-liability-ai", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表把设计缺陷、警示义务和产品监管适配到 AI 系统的一种专业论证。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule-knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule", "documentId": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于分析采购者、专业人士和其他人类使用者在依赖 AI 辅助决定时的注意义务与可预见性。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule-knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule", "documentId": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "relationship": "empirical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供法律幻觉发生率和分布的系统证据，支持专业核验的重要性，但不直接决定个案制裁。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, { "id": "news-context-link-matter-40-matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule-news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule", "documentId": "news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为自主或适应性代理造成语言和交易伤害时的开发者、使用者、保险与主体责任提供开放性框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "uncertain", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" } ] }, "issueDocuments": [ { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-company-responsibility-knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility", "documentId": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "relationship": "empirical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供法律幻觉发生率和分布的系统证据，支持专业核验的重要性，但不直接决定个案制裁。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "familyId": "knowledge-family-large-legal-fictions", "title": "大型法律虚构：大语言模型法律幻觉画像", "originalTitle": "Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laae003", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "journal-legal-analysis", "publishedAt": "2024-06-17", "author": "Matthew Dahl; Varun Magesh; Mirac Suzgun; Daniel E. Ho", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.1093/jla/laae003" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "系统测量多个大语言模型回答美国联邦案例问题时的法律幻觉，并显示错误随法院层级、时间和提问前提变化；研究支持核验义务，但不能单独决定具体制裁。", "venue": "Journal of Legal Analysis 16(1): 64–93", "publisher": "Oxford University Press", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": true, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.1093/jla/laae003" }, "legalTopics": [ "professional-responsibility", "consumer-protection" ], "aiRoles": [ "judicial-professional-use", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-company-responsibility-knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility", "documentId": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于分析采购者、专业人士和其他人类使用者在依赖 AI 辅助决定时的注意义务与可预见性。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "familyId": "knowledge-family-negligence-ai-human-users", "title": "过失责任与 AI 的人类使用者", "originalTitle": "Negligence and AI’s Human Users", "url": "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3350508", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-university-law-review", "publishedAt": "2020", "author": "Andrew D. Selbst", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.2139/ssrn.3350508" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "把多数现实 AI 定位为人类决策辅助工具，分析不可预见错误、人机能力限制、软件脆弱性和统计偏差如何改变使用者的注意义务与可归责性。", "venue": "Boston University Law Review 100: 1315–1376", "publisher": "Boston University Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.2139/ssrn.3350508" }, "legalTopics": [ "product-liability", "professional-responsibility", "automated-decision-making", "consumer-protection" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision", "judicial-professional-use", "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-40-matter-40:issue-company-responsibility-news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-company-responsibility", "documentId": "news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为自主或适应性代理造成语言和交易伤害时的开发者、使用者、保险与主体责任提供开放性框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "uncertain", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "familyId": "news-family-artificial-agents-blame", "title": "人工代理撒谎、诽谤或欺诈时，谁应负责？", "originalTitle": "When Artificial Agents Lie, Defame, and Defraud, Who Is to Blame?", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/when-artificial-agents-lie-defame-and-defraud-who-blame", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2021-04-14", "author": "Christopher Potts; Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar; Judith Degen; Michael C. Frank; Noah D. Goodman; Thomas Icard; Dorsa Sadigh", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "跨学科作者用适应性人工代理实施诽谤、欺诈等语言行为的假设，比较人类过失、企业责任、监管、保险和有限法律主体化等责任工具。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "文章保留了开放问题：责任可以放在开发者、所有者、使用者或代理安排本身，但代理具有不可预测行为并不自动使任何一方免责。", "legalTopics": [ "product-liability", "consumer-protection", "professional-responsibility" ], "aiRoles": [ "agentic-action", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation-knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation", "documentId": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于分析采购者、专业人士和其他人类使用者在依赖 AI 辅助决定时的注意义务与可预见性。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "familyId": "knowledge-family-negligence-ai-human-users", "title": "过失责任与 AI 的人类使用者", "originalTitle": "Negligence and AI’s Human Users", "url": "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3350508", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-university-law-review", "publishedAt": "2020", "author": "Andrew D. Selbst", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.2139/ssrn.3350508" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "把多数现实 AI 定位为人类决策辅助工具，分析不可预见错误、人机能力限制、软件脆弱性和统计偏差如何改变使用者的注意义务与可归责性。", "venue": "Boston University Law Review 100: 1315–1376", "publisher": "Boston University Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.2139/ssrn.3350508" }, "legalTopics": [ "product-liability", "professional-responsibility", "automated-decision-making", "consumer-protection" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision", "judicial-professional-use", "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation-knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation", "documentId": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "relationship": "empirical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供法律幻觉发生率和分布的系统证据，支持专业核验的重要性，但不直接决定个案制裁。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "familyId": "knowledge-family-large-legal-fictions", "title": "大型法律虚构：大语言模型法律幻觉画像", "originalTitle": "Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laae003", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "journal-legal-analysis", "publishedAt": "2024-06-17", "author": "Matthew Dahl; Varun Magesh; Mirac Suzgun; Daniel E. Ho", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.1093/jla/laae003" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "系统测量多个大语言模型回答美国联邦案例问题时的法律幻觉，并显示错误随法院层级、时间和提问前提变化；研究支持核验义务，但不能单独决定具体制裁。", "venue": "Journal of Legal Analysis 16(1): 64–93", "publisher": "Oxford University Press", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": true, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.1093/jla/laae003" }, "legalTopics": [ "professional-responsibility", "consumer-protection" ], "aiRoles": [ "judicial-professional-use", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-40-matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation-news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-negligent-misrepresentation", "documentId": "news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为自主或适应性代理造成语言和交易伤害时的开发者、使用者、保险与主体责任提供开放性框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "uncertain", "confidence": 0.95, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "familyId": "news-family-artificial-agents-blame", "title": "人工代理撒谎、诽谤或欺诈时，谁应负责？", "originalTitle": "When Artificial Agents Lie, Defame, and Defraud, Who Is to Blame?", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/when-artificial-agents-lie-defame-and-defraud-who-blame", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2021-04-14", "author": "Christopher Potts; Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar; Judith Degen; Michael C. Frank; Noah D. Goodman; Thomas Icard; Dorsa Sadigh", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "跨学科作者用适应性人工代理实施诽谤、欺诈等语言行为的假设，比较人类过失、企业责任、监管、保险和有限法律主体化等责任工具。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "文章保留了开放问题：责任可以放在开发者、所有者、使用者或代理安排本身，但代理具有不可预测行为并不自动使任何一方免责。", "legalTopics": [ "product-liability", "consumer-protection", "professional-responsibility" ], "aiRoles": [ "agentic-action", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-reliance-loss-knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss", "documentId": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "relationship": "empirical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供法律幻觉发生率和分布的系统证据，支持专业核验的重要性，但不直接决定个案制裁。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 2 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.9, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "familyId": "knowledge-family-large-legal-fictions", "title": "大型法律虚构：大语言模型法律幻觉画像", "originalTitle": "Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laae003", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "journal-legal-analysis", "publishedAt": "2024-06-17", "author": "Matthew Dahl; Varun Magesh; Mirac Suzgun; Daniel E. Ho", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.1093/jla/laae003" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "系统测量多个大语言模型回答美国联邦案例问题时的法律幻觉，并显示错误随法院层级、时间和提问前提变化；研究支持核验义务，但不能单独决定具体制裁。", "venue": "Journal of Legal Analysis 16(1): 64–93", "publisher": "Oxford University Press", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": true, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.1093/jla/laae003" }, "legalTopics": [ "professional-responsibility", "consumer-protection" ], "aiRoles": [ "judicial-professional-use", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-reliance-loss-knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss", "documentId": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于分析采购者、专业人士和其他人类使用者在依赖 AI 辅助决定时的注意义务与可预见性。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "familyId": "knowledge-family-negligence-ai-human-users", "title": "过失责任与 AI 的人类使用者", "originalTitle": "Negligence and AI’s Human Users", "url": "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3350508", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-university-law-review", "publishedAt": "2020", "author": "Andrew D. Selbst", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.2139/ssrn.3350508" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "把多数现实 AI 定位为人类决策辅助工具，分析不可预见错误、人机能力限制、软件脆弱性和统计偏差如何改变使用者的注意义务与可归责性。", "venue": "Boston University Law Review 100: 1315–1376", "publisher": "Boston University Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.2139/ssrn.3350508" }, "legalTopics": [ "product-liability", "professional-responsibility", "automated-decision-making", "consumer-protection" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision", "judicial-professional-use", "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-40-matter-40:issue-reliance-loss-news-context-products-liability-ai", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-reliance-loss", "documentId": "news-context-products-liability-ai", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "代表把设计缺陷、警示义务和产品监管适配到 AI 系统的一种专业论证。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "supportive", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-products-liability-ai", "familyId": "news-family-products-liability-ai", "title": "人工智能的产品责任", "originalTitle": "Products Liability for Artificial Intelligence", "url": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/article/products-liability-for-artificial-intelligence", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "lawfare", "publishedAt": "2024-09-25", "author": "Catherine Sharkey", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "文章论证产品责任可通过设计缺陷、警示义务和高风险产品监管类比来约束 AI，同时正面处理软件是否属于产品以及用户行为介入的问题。", "venue": "Lawfare", "publisher": "Lawfare Institute", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "评论主张产品责任能够激励开发者在发布前改善安全设计，但承认软件的无形性、因果关系和下游用户行为会使传统规则适配困难。", "legalTopics": [ "product-liability", "consumer-protection", "platform-liability" ], "aiRoles": [ "model-output", "agentic-action", "automated-decision" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule-knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule", "documentId": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "relationship": "doctrinal-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "用于分析采购者、专业人士和其他人类使用者在依赖 AI 辅助决定时的注意义务与可预见性。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 3 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "mixed", "confidence": 0.9500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-negligence-ai-human-users", "familyId": "knowledge-family-negligence-ai-human-users", "title": "过失责任与 AI 的人类使用者", "originalTitle": "Negligence and AI’s Human Users", "url": "https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3350508", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "boston-university-law-review", "publishedAt": "2020", "author": "Andrew D. Selbst", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.2139/ssrn.3350508" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "把多数现实 AI 定位为人类决策辅助工具，分析不可预见错误、人机能力限制、软件脆弱性和统计偏差如何改变使用者的注意义务与可归责性。", "venue": "Boston University Law Review 100: 1315–1376", "publisher": "Boston University Law Review", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.2139/ssrn.3350508" }, "legalTopics": [ "product-liability", "professional-responsibility", "automated-decision-making", "consumer-protection" ], "aiRoles": [ "automated-decision", "judicial-professional-use", "model-output", "agentic-action" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "issue-document-matter-40-matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule-knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule", "documentId": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "relationship": "empirical-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "提供法律幻觉发生率和分布的系统证据，支持专业核验的重要性，但不直接决定个案制裁。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词；AI 作用分面只用于候选召回。", "viewpoint": "critical", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "knowledge-large-legal-fictions", "familyId": "knowledge-family-large-legal-fictions", "title": "大型法律虚构：大语言模型法律幻觉画像", "originalTitle": "Large Legal Fictions: Profiling Legal Hallucinations in Large Language Models", "url": "https://doi.org/10.1093/jla/laae003", "kind": "academic-research", "sourceId": "journal-legal-analysis", "publishedAt": "2024-06-17", "author": "Matthew Dahl; Varun Magesh; Mirac Suzgun; Daniel E. Ho", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": { "doi": "10.1093/jla/laae003" }, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "系统测量多个大语言模型回答美国联邦案例问题时的法律幻觉，并显示错误随法院层级、时间和提问前提变化；研究支持核验义务，但不能单独决定具体制裁。", "venue": "Journal of Legal Analysis 16(1): 64–93", "publisher": "Oxford University Press", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": true, "paywalled": false }, "stableIdentifier": { "kind": "doi", "value": "10.1093/jla/laae003" }, "legalTopics": [ "professional-responsibility", "consumer-protection" ], "aiRoles": [ "judicial-professional-use", "model-output" ] } }, { "link": { "id": "news-context-link-matter-40-matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule-news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "matterId": "matter-40", "issueId": "matter-40:issue-no-ai-personhood-rule", "documentId": "news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "relationship": "news-context", "relevanceSummaryZh": "为自主或适应性代理造成语言和交易伤害时的开发者、使用者、保险与主体责任提供开放性框架。 本次规则匹配仅使用本争点文本及其引用主张，命中 1 个确定性争点词。", "viewpoint": "uncertain", "confidence": 0.8500000000000001, "assignedBy": "rule" }, "document": { "id": "news-context-artificial-agents-blame", "familyId": "news-family-artificial-agents-blame", "title": "人工代理撒谎、诽谤或欺诈时，谁应负责？", "originalTitle": "When Artificial Agents Lie, Defame, and Defraud, Who Is to Blame?", "url": "https://hai.stanford.edu/news/when-artificial-agents-lie-defame-and-defraud-who-blame", "kind": "professional-commentary", "sourceId": "stanford-hai", "publishedAt": "2021-04-14", "author": "Christopher Potts; Mariano-Florentino Cuéllar; Judith Degen; Michael C. Frank; Noah D. Goodman; Thomas Icard; Dorsa Sadigh", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "relationship": "independent", "identifiers": {}, "language": "en", "metadata": { "abstractZh": "跨学科作者用适应性人工代理实施诽谤、欺诈等语言行为的假设，比较人类过失、企业责任、监管、保险和有限法律主体化等责任工具。", "venue": "Stanford HAI News", "publisher": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "publicationState": "published", "peerReviewed": false, "paywalled": false }, "editorialSummaryZh": "文章保留了开放问题：责任可以放在开发者、所有者、使用者或代理安排本身，但代理具有不可预测行为并不自动使任何一方免责。", "legalTopics": [ "product-liability", "consumer-protection", "professional-responsibility" ], "aiRoles": [ "agentic-action", "model-output" ] } } ], "sources": [ { "id": "canlii", "slug": "canlii", "name": "Canadian Legal Information Institute", "homepage": "https://www.canlii.org/", "type": "legal-database", "grade": "A", "primaryOrSecondary": "mixed", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 17, "ownershipTransparency": 20, "expertise": 19, "historicalAccuracy": 14, "total": 95 }, "rationale": "加拿大非营利法律信息机构，提供具备中立引注的法院和仲裁裁决全文。", "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-15" }, { "id": "journal-legal-analysis", "slug": "journal-legal-analysis", "name": "Journal of Legal Analysis", "homepage": "https://academic.oup.com/jla", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "同行评审开放获取法学期刊，由 Oxford University Press 提供 DOI、版本和作者信息。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 25, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 14, "total": 96 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "boston-university-law-review", "slug": "boston-university-law-review", "name": "Boston University Law Review", "homepage": "https://www.bu.edu/bulawreview/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "学生编辑法学评论，学校保存正式发表版本；SSRN DOI 仅作为稳定发现标识。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 24, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 18, "expertise": 18, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 88 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16" }, { "id": "stanford-hai", "slug": "stanford-hai", "name": "Stanford Institute for Human-Centered Artificial Intelligence", "homepage": "https://hai.stanford.edu/", "type": "academic", "primaryOrSecondary": "mixed", "rationale": "大学研究机构发布研究、政策简报与新闻；按具体作者和文类区分一手研究与机构评论。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 16, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 20, "historicalAccuracy": 12, "total": 90 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } }, { "id": "lawfare", "slug": "lawfare", "name": "Lawfare", "homepage": "https://www.lawfaremedia.org/", "type": "newsroom", "primaryOrSecondary": "secondary", "rationale": "作者和编辑准则公开，长期提供国家安全、平台治理和科技法分析；具体案件结论仍回溯官方材料。", "grade": "A", "score": { "traceability": 23, "corrections": 18, "ownershipTransparency": 19, "expertise": 19, "historicalAccuracy": 13, "total": 92 }, "methodologyVersion": "1.0", "reviewedAt": "2026-07-16", "ingestion": { "feedEnabled": false, "feedUrl": null, "verification": "not-verified", "allowedUse": "discovery-metadata-and-deep-links" } } ], "canonicalUrl": "/cases/moffatt-v-air-canada" }