Skip to main content
NOPE
Low reported severity Media Coverage

Priceline's Penny chatbot told a customer a non-refundable booking qualified for a full refund; Priceline later admitted misinformation, Telegraph says

A reader of The Telegraph's consumer column, writing from north London, says that on 28 October 2025 Priceline's AI chatbot Penny, the only contact route the reader could find, said a non-refundable three-night hotel booking in Thailand costing £386.91 was eligible for a full refund. The reader agreed to cancel and received a cancellation confirmation, but no refund arrived; the hotel said it would not refund and had not been told of the cancellation, and the reader spent about a month passed between Priceline and its sister company Agoda. After the columnist pressed Priceline, it paid £363.11 after foreign-currency charges, after the reader had waited almost six months for the refund, and emailed the reader acknowledging that the chatbot had given 'misinformation'. The column was published on 18 May 2026.

AI system
Priceline Penny
Priceline
Occurred
28 Oct 2025
Reported
18 May 2026
Event location
Unknown
What the AI did
Communicated with the person · Acted on the person’s behalf
Reported harm
Financial LossPsychological Distress
Whose AI use
An institution’s AI use
Setting
Finance · Everyday life
Evidence
AI involvement reported · Causal attribution supported · 2 sources, 1 underlying account
5 claims: 5 reported. 3 open questions
People reported harmed
1 person

AI system as recorded: Penny, Priceline's AI travel assistant, which the reader says was the only contact route and which processed the cancellation

What Happened

The booking. The reader says they booked three nights at a hotel in Thailand for 4 to 7 November 2025 through Priceline on 27 August 2025, as a non-refundable booking costing £386.91.

The chatbot. On 28 October 2025 the reader looked into cancelling and says there was 'no way of contacting Priceline except via its AI chatbot, which it calls Penny.' According to the reader, Penny said that, though the booking was 'originally listed as [a] non-refundable booking', it was eligible for a full refund within 10 working days, asked whether to go ahead and, on the reader's yes, the cancellation was confirmed by email. The columnist says the reader's screenshot shows Penny saying the reader could receive a refund of £386.91.

The aftermath. No refund arrived. The hotel told the reader it would not refund and had not been informed of the cancellation; the reader describes going 'around in circles for about a month' between Agoda and Priceline and says: 'I wouldn't have cancelled the hotel if I hadn't been led to believe I was eligible for a refund.'

The resolution. After the columnist intervened, Priceline paid £363.11 after foreign-currency charges and emailed the reader acknowledging that the chatbot had given 'misinformation' because the reservation was supposed to be non-refundable.

Reported harm

The customer cancelled a non-refundable £386.91 hotel booking after Priceline's chatbot said it qualified for a full refund, then waited almost six months and needed a newspaper columnist's intervention to recover £363.11 (reader's account in The Telegraph; Priceline acknowledged the chatbot's misinformation).

Outcome

Resolved

After The Telegraph's consumer columnist pressed the company, Priceline paid £363.11 by bank transfer, emailed the reader acknowledging the chatbot's 'misinformation' and apologised for the delay; it did not answer a request for a further gesture.

What remains unknown

  • The chatbot's full wording, beyond the quoted fragment and the columnist's description of the screenshot.
  • Whether the reader lost any other money, such as for the alternative accommodation.
  • The date of the £363.11 payment beyond 'last month' relative to the May 2026 column.

What the evidence supports

AI involvement: reported. The reader says Priceline's AI chatbot Penny told them a non-refundable booking was eligible for a full refund, asked whether to proceed and, on their yes, the cancellation was confirmed; the columnist describes a screenshot of Penny promising a £386.91 refund. The reader says they cancelled only because of that statement, and Priceline later emailed acknowledging that the chatbot had given misinformation.

5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean

Reported The reader held a non-refundable Priceline hotel booking costing £386.91.

Causal attribution. Not a causal claim.

Reported On 28 October 2025 the only contact route the reader found was Priceline's AI chatbot Penny, which said the booking was eligible for a full refund, asked whether to proceed and, on the reader's agreement, the cancellation was confirmed by email.

Causal attribution. The reader's account and the columnist's description of the reader's screenshot; the chat itself was not inspected.

Reported No refund arrived; the hotel said it would not refund and had not been told of the cancellation, and the reader spent about a month passed between Agoda and Priceline.

Causal attribution. The reader attributes the cancellation to the chatbot's refund statement.

  • telegraph.co.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    they said not only would I not receive a refund, as it went against their policy, but that they hadn’t even been informed of my cancellation.
  • telegraph.co.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    I went around in circles for about a month, with no one knowing who was responsible for looking into it.
Reported The reader says they would not have cancelled had the chatbot not said a refund was due.

Causal attribution. The reader's own causal account.

Reported After the columnist pressed the company, Priceline paid £363.11 after foreign-currency charges and emailed the reader acknowledging that the chatbot had given misinformation.

Causal attribution. The columnist's account of Priceline's email; Priceline's acknowledgement supports the chatbot's error. The email was not inspected.

  • telegraph.co.uk(opens in new tab) supports · English
    This was finally done last month, when you received £363.11, after foreign currency charges. The company also emailed you acknowledging that the chatbot had given you “misinformation”

Sources

2 sources inspected, from 1 underlying account. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.

How the sources were read, and where the events happened

Read in English in full from an Internet Archive capture of the Telegraph page (live page HTTP 402 paywall). Consumer column quoting the reader's letter and the columnist's dealings with Priceline; the screenshot and emails were not inspected. Applies to s1.

Read in English in full from uk.news.yahoo.com (HTTP 200); a reprint of the same Telegraph column, so the same independence group. Applies to s2.

Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: United Kingdom. Court countries: Unknown.

The letter is signed from north London. The chat took place online and the booked hotel was in Thailand; no source places the exchange itself, so the event country is left unknown.

Reviewed for publication 2026-10-06: Published as a concrete consumer account in a national newspaper's consumer column: a customer-service chatbot told a customer a non-refundable booking qualified for a refund, the customer cancelled on that basis, and the company later acknowledged the chatbot's misinformation. The reader is identified only by initials.

People described

A Priceline customer in north London, identified by the column only by initials, who cancelled a non-refundable hotel booking after the chatbot's refund statement

People reported harmed in this case

1 person

1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed

One person: the reader who used the chatbot and cancelled the booking. No other person is described as affected.

Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.

Tags

#customer-service-chatbot#travel#refund#misinformation

Cite this case

Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.

APA

NOPE. (2026). Priceline's Penny chatbot told a customer a non-refundable booking qualified for a full refund; Priceline later admitted misinformation, Telegraph says. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2025-priceline-penny-chatbot-promised-refund-on-non-refundable-hotel-booking

BibTeX

@misc{2025_priceline_penny_chatbot_promised_refund_on_non_refundable_hotel_booking,
  title = {Priceline's Penny chatbot told a customer a non-refundable booking qualified for a full refund; Priceline later admitted misinformation, Telegraph says},
  author = {NOPE},
  year = {2026},
  howpublished = {AI incidents},
  url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2025-priceline-penny-chatbot-promised-refund-on-non-refundable-hotel-booking}
}

Related cases

Medium Unidentified video tool

Brazil: scammers used AI-cloned voices and images of children with cancer in fake donation campaigns; 16 arrested in Operação Sophia

On 14 July 2026 the Rio Grande do Sul Civil Police launched Operação Sophia against a group that used AI voice cloning and deepfake to turn real fundraising campaigns of children with cancer into fake donation appeals: AI-generated child voices asked for money in videos boosted by pages such as 'Clube de Doadores' and 'Unidos pelo Amor', leading donors to lookalike sites that issued Pix codes to shell companies. Sixteen people were arrested across five states. In the campaign that started the investigation — using the image of Kelen Santos's daughter, who was in cancer treatment — police traced R$294,500 diverted, and the investigation found a financial-hub company that moved more than R$1.7 million. The family had to tell congratulating donors that their money had gone to a scam.

Medium Unidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)

Hudsonville (Grand Rapids area), Michigan: a couple wired US$66,026.92 to scammers after a spoofed email and a phone call in what sounded like their loan officer's voice, which they and a fraud-prevention firm attribute to AI voice cloning

A married couple in their sixties buying a US$460,000 condo in Hudsonville, near Grand Rapids, Michigan, received an email on 19 May 2026, days before closing, telling them to wire US$66,026.92 for the down payment and closing costs within 24 hours. The email listed a phone number differing from their loan officer's by two digits, and the husband then received a call confirming the instructions in a voice that sounded just like the loan officer. The couple borrowed from family and other sources and wired the money. The day before closing their real loan officer sent the actual statement; the closing was cancelled hours before signing and the money was gone. The husband now believes the call came from a spoofed number using AI-assisted voice cloning; Tyler Adams of CertifID, which is working with the couple and federal officials, said someone's email in the transaction was probably compromised and that the scammers likely cloned the loan officer's voice from social-media clips. The sender's address had two extra letters ('UnitedsMortgages' instead of 'UnitedMortgage'). Neither the lender nor the loan officer is accused of complicity. The couple later completed the purchase in early June from their mutual fund, reported the loss to the FBI's Internet Crime Complaint Center, and describe lasting apprehension and have discussed delaying retirement. CNN reported the case on 15 September 2026; the account the money went to has since closed.

Medium Unidentified voice-cloning tool (suspected)

Bay Area, California: a mother reports wiring $5,400 to Mexico during a fake kidnapping call that used a voice the mother believed was the adult daughter's, which ABC7 reports scammers mimicked with AI

ABC7 (KGO-TV, 24 May 2026) and ABC News (a Good Morning America segment, 26 May 2026) reported that a Bay Area woman received a call from an unknown number in May 2026. The caller said the woman's adult daughter had been kidnapped by a Mexican drug cartel and played a voice the woman believed was the daughter's, in panic. The woman followed the caller's instructions for about five hours, feared for the daughter's life and wired $5,400 to Mexico. The woman then phoned the daughter, who said the daughter was at work, and realized the call was a scam. ABC7 states that scammers used artificial intelligence to mimic the daughter's voice, and ABC News describes AI as what the woman suspects was used. Neither outlet reports an analysis of the audio or a police finding about a cloned voice. An Operation Shamrock representative quoted by both outlets spoke of voice cloning in general terms and not about this call. ABC7 reports that Martinez police said they are investigating, and the woman said the money is not expected to be recovered. Both outlets rest on the woman's own account. The woman is described by role and the daughter is not named.

Medium Unidentified voice-cloning tool

Washington man reports wiring $13,000 during a 30-hour fake-kidnapping call that used a reported AI copy of the daughter's voice

The Spokesman-Review (8 May 2026) reported that a 75-year-old man in Washington state took a call on Monday 23 March in which a crying voice presented as the man's adult daughter said an accident had happened and asked for help. Male voices then described a collision and said the daughter had been taken hostage. The newspaper states that the daughter's voice on the call was an AI-generated copy and that investigators later surmised the callers used a recording of the daughter's voice with a program that mimicked the speech pattern. Over about 30 hours the callers directed the man to banks and stores in Washington and Idaho, where $13,000 was wired. The man was about to withdraw $17,000 when a bank employee stalled and police were alerted, and police then reached the daughter, who confirmed being at home and safe. The newspaper says none of the wired money had been recovered when the article was published. The man says it took days to start feeling normal again. The report rests on the man's account, a bank employee's account and a police report quoted by the newspaper. The article gives the call date as Monday 23 March without a year. The record uses 2026 because 23 March fell on a Monday only in 2026 among the years 2023 to 2026. The range starts at 2023 because the article says the Federal Trade Commission began warning about AI voice-copy scams as early as 2023, and it ends at 2026 because the article was published on 8 May 2026.

If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.

Back to all incidents