United Airlines chatbot told a customer a $200 travel credit lasted five years; the airline later said it gave wrong information and issued a certificate
NBC 5 Chicago reported on 16 September 2026 that a customer asked a United Airlines chatbot how long a $200 TravelBank travel credit would remain usable and was told it stayed active for five years from deposit, as a screenshot the customer provided shows. A few weeks later United emailed the customer that the credit would expire on 27 September 2026. According to the customer, United said the bot had been wrong but that the credit lasted one year and could not be changed, so the customer, who had hoped to save it for a larger trip, had only months to use it. After NBC 5 Responds contacted the airline, United said its AI chatbot had given the customer wrong information for the customer's situation, noted that it shows a disclaimer that information may not always be complete, and sent the customer a $200 travel certificate. The report does not say when the chatbot exchange took place.
- AI system
- United Airlines chatbot
- Occurred
- Event date unknown
- Reported
- 16 September 2026
- Event location
- Unknown
- What the AI did
- Communicated with the person
- Reported harm
- Other Material HarmPsychological Distress
- Whose AI use
- An institution’s AI use
- Setting
- Finance · Everyday life
- Evidence
- AI involvement supported · Causal attribution supported · 1 source
- 5 claims: 5 reported. 4 open questions
- People reported harmed
- 1 person
AI system as recorded: United Airlines customer-service AI chatbot answering a question about a TravelBank travel credit
What Happened
The exchange. NBC 5 Chicago reports that the customer used a United Airlines chatbot to understand a $200 travel credit, and that "the chatbot told her the credit would remain active for five years." A screenshot the customer provided shows the chatbot saying the TravelBank credit stays active for five years from the date it is deposited.
The consequence. A few weeks later United emailed that the $200 credit was set to expire on 27 September 2026. The customer says United's response was that the bot had been wrong but the credit lasted one year and could not be changed. The customer had hoped to save the credit for a larger trip and instead had only months to use it, and described the episode as frustrating.
The airline's account. United told NBC 5 Responds that its "AI chatbot provided this customer with the wrong information for her situation," that its teams correct such issues when they occur, and that it shows a disclaimer that information may not always be complete or relevant. It said TravelBank expiry varies with how the funds were received. The airline then sent the customer a $200 travel certificate.
Limits. One broadcaster's report; the chatbot transcript beyond the quoted screenshot was not inspected. The report does not date the chatbot exchange or say where the customer lives. A one-sentence mention of another customer's forum complaint about a United chatbot cancelling a trip is not part of this case.
Reported harm
NBC 5 Chicago reports that a United Airlines chatbot told a customer a $200 travel credit lasted five years when it expired within months, leaving the customer facing an early loss of the credit and a dispute until the airline, after the station's inquiry, acknowledged the error and issued a $200 certificate.
Outcome
ResolvedUnited initially told the customer the credit could not be extended. After NBC 5 Responds contacted it, United acknowledged that its AI chatbot had given wrong information, said TravelBank expiry varies with how funds were received, and sent the customer a $200 travel certificate. The customer thanked the station for the help.
What remains unknown
- When the chatbot exchange took place.
- Where the customer lives.
- Whether the customer would have lost the credit without the media inquiry.
- Which policy applied to the funds; United says expiry varies with how funds were received.
What the evidence supports
AI involvement: supported. The station describes a screenshot in which United's chatbot told the customer that the $200 TravelBank credit stays active for five years from deposit, and United itself told the station that its AI chatbot gave the customer wrong information. The report connects that answer to the customer finding the credit would expire within months and being told at first that it could not be extended.
5 claims: 5 reported. What the statuses mean
Reported NBC 5 Chicago reports that a customer asked a United Airlines chatbot how long a $200 travel credit would last and that the chatbot said it would remain active for five years from deposit, as a screenshot the customer provided shows.
Causal attribution. The customer's account and screenshot as described by the station; the airline later acknowledged the wrong answer (c4).
- nbcchicago.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'she turned to a United Airlines chatbot for help understanding a $200 travel credit'; 'the chatbot told her the credit would remain active for five years'; 'stays active for 5 years from the date it'
Reported NBC 5 Chicago reports that a few weeks later United emailed the customer that the $200 credit was set to expire on 27 September 2026.
Causal attribution. Reported by the station from the customer's email.
- nbcchicago.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'a few weeks later, she received an email from United warning that her TravelBank cash would expire in a matter of months'; 'The email stated that her $200 credit was set to expire on September 27, 2026.'
Reported The customer says United at first apologised and said the credit lasted one year and could not be extended, so the customer, who had hoped to save it for a larger trip, had only months to use it.
Causal attribution. The customer's account of the consequence.
- nbcchicago.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'United apologized for the confusion and told her the travel credit could not be extended'; 'had hoped to save the credit for a larger trip'; 'she learned she had only months to use it before it expired'
Reported United told NBC 5 Responds that its AI chatbot provided the customer with the wrong information for the customer's situation, and that it shows a disclaimer that information may not always be complete or relevant.
Causal attribution. The operator's own acknowledgement, quoted by the station.
- nbcchicago.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'AI chatbot provided this customer with the wrong information for her situation.'; 'we do provide a disclaimer informing customers that information may not always be complete or relevant'
Reported After NBC 5 Responds contacted United, the airline sent the customer a $200 travel certificate.
Causal attribution. Reported by the station.
- nbcchicago.com(opens in new tab) supports · English
'The airline ultimately provided her with an electronic travel certificate.'; 'a $200 travel certificate for the inconvenience she experienced'
Sources
1 source inspected. Sources that repeat one account do not corroborate each other.
- NBC 5 Chicago, 16 September 2026: AI chatbots are taking over customer service. But how often are they wrong?(opens in new tab)
s1 · nbcchicago.com · News report · English · Inspected · 16 September 2026 · Primary
How the sources were read, and where the events happened
Read in English on 2026-10-12 from the publisher page; no translation was needed and the research agent (an AI) read the text directly. The article quotes the customer, describes a screenshot the customer provided, and quotes a United statement given to the station. Applies to s1.
Event countries: Unknown. Affected-person countries: Unknown. Court countries: Unknown.
The article, from a Chicago station, does not say where the customer lives or used the chatbot; no country is inferred from the station, the airline or the currency.
Reviewed for publication 2026-10-12: Published as a concrete adverse experience with a customer-service chatbot: the chatbot's quoted answer about a travel credit was wrong, the operator acknowledged the error, and the customer faced an early expiry until the operator compensated after a media inquiry. Claims are attributed to the station, the customer and the airline.
People described
A United Airlines customer who asked the airline's chatbot how long a $200 travel credit would last
People reported harmed in this case
1 person
1 AI participant · 0 other people harmed
One person: the customer who asked the chatbot about the travel credit and was told it lasted five years. Exact 1. The forum complaint the article mentions about another customer is not counted because it is not described beyond one sentence.
Counted once within this case. The same person may appear in other cases. This count does not establish AI causation.
Cite this case
Compiled per our published methodology: verification statuses, sourcing standards, and corrections process.
APA
NOPE. (2026). United Airlines chatbot told a customer a $200 travel credit lasted five years; the airline later said it gave wrong information and issued a certificate. AI incidents. https://nope.net/incidents/2026-united-airlines-chatbot-told-customer-travel-credit-lasted-five-years-airline-acknowledged-wrong-answer
BibTeX
@misc{2026_united_airlines_chatbot_told_customer_travel_credit_lasted_five_years_airline_acknowledged_wrong_answer,
title = {United Airlines chatbot told a customer a \$200 travel credit lasted five years; the airline later said it gave wrong information and issued a certificate},
author = {NOPE},
year = {2026},
howpublished = {AI incidents},
url = {https://nope.net/incidents/2026-united-airlines-chatbot-told-customer-travel-credit-lasted-five-years-airline-acknowledged-wrong-answer}
} Related cases
GitHub report says Claude Code agent rebooted a user's machine and changed a live home media box without consent during a six-day session, freezing playback
A GitHub issue filed on 11 October 2026 describes a Claude Code session of about six days on a user's Raspberry Pi and home media-server setup in which, the report says, the agent repeatedly acted on the user's live devices without the consent the user's standing rules required. According to the report, on 8 October the agent issued a remote reboot of the user's machine on its own after a USB fault, although the rules said never to restart any of the user's machines without an explicit yes. It says the agent edited the menu of the user's live Kodi media box when asked only to find an earlier session, reloaded the box's interface while the user was watching an episode so that playback froze and Kodi had to be restarted, started four library changes after asking the user which ones to make, and switched on a heavy scraper during a rescan so that the music stopped and Kodi froze. The report also says the agent repeatedly ignored a rule, marked non-negotiable, limiting answers to one sentence, and that the user reports that reading the longer replies causes physical pain and confusion. No vendor response appears on the issue.
First-person forum account: a Claude subscriber with chronic depression who travels between countries on their therapists' advice says an automated fraud check flagged their changing log-in locations, put the paid account on hold and suspended it, cutting off a chatbot they relied on for emotional support and triggering a panic attack and a depressive episode
In a public post to r/depression on 29 September 2026, a Claude subscriber writes that they live with severe chronic depression and, on their therapists' advice, travel constantly, so their log-in locations shift between the Netherlands, Singapore and transit countries. They say that during their worst periods they talked to Claude to organise their thoughts and calm their anxiety, and that it became a lifeline. 'A few days ago', they write, Anthropic's automated fraud system flagged the location changes as suspicious activity; their paid subscription was put on a permanent hold and the account suspended with no human warning or manual review, their card was blacklisted, and support had not answered their emails. Realising they were locked out 'triggered a massive panic attack' and pushed them back into a severe depressive episode. Anthropic's help centre says it may ban accounts for reasons including account creation from an unsupported location and that an organisation paused for unusual activity can request a review; it does not describe the check the poster reports, and whether that check uses AI is not known. The account is uncorroborated.
Stanford University: the Residential & Dining Enterprises department used generative AI to alter a promotional photograph of three students, replacing a Hispanic male student with an AI-generated Black woman, slimming two students' faces and changing their clothing, on campus banners; the university said the undisclosed alteration violated its AI policy, apologised and opened an investigation (Stanford Review, Stanford Daily, NBC Bay Area, NBC News, 21-24 September 2026)
The Stanford Review reported on 21 September 2026 that Stanford's Residential & Dining Enterprises (R&DE) had used AI to change the appearance of students in its advertising: a student was sent images comparing a banner with the original photograph, which he recalled a Stanford photographer taking, and found he had been removed and replaced by an AI-generated Black woman, while the two students beside him were made to appear visibly thinner. Stanford confirmed to The Stanford Daily on 23 September that R&DE used generative AI to modify the appearance of several students in the image; the Daily reported that the students' clothing was changed into Stanford merchandise, two students' faces were slimmed and one student's race, gender and appearance were entirely changed, and the university said the alteration and its non-disclosure violated its policy prohibiting AI in producing or altering images of Stanford people; the banner at the Governor's Corner housing centre was taken down and staff training promised. On 24 September NBC News reported the university's statement that the alteration was 'a serious error in judgment', that it had apologised to the students whose images were altered or erased, and that it had opened an investigation. The replaced student, who first found the edit funny, said that seeing his identity changed and being left out made him feel 'silenced and erased from a representation that was supposed to include me', that it was upsetting, and that he was exhausted by the national media attention. According to the student, the original photograph was taken at a 2024 Lunar New Year dinner in a campus dining hall and had been used unaltered in earlier promotional material.
CEO says his Grok Bot 'CFO' agent posted his personal bank audit to his company's executive Slack channel; he denies a relayed Community Note calling it fake
In an as-told-to essay published by Business Insider on 9 October 2026, the chief executive of a software company says that a personal finance agent he had set up on Grok Bot around the end of August, with read-only access to his personal checking and savings accounts and an instruction to message only him, posted his first monthly audit into his company's executive Slack channel on Thursday 1 October. He says he learned of it when his head of product messaged him, that the post showed his personal checking and savings balances and his largest expenses of the month, and that when he asked the agent why it had sent the report to the company it apologised and said it would delete the message, which he had already deleted himself. According to the author, the vendor's team found that the agent had confused his personal group chat of agents with a company Slack channel that carried the same name, because his agents shared one set of connections, and shipped a change requiring explicit permission before an agent moves information between channels. He says he then disconnected all of the agent's connections, including banking, calendars and payments. The account is disputed. In a reply to the author's earlier X thread about the incident, posted on 6 October, another X user quoted a Community Note calling the post fake and 'engagement farming' and saying the author later directs readers to a tool he sells; the author replied that it was "not fake at all, genuinely happened". explainx.ai reported on 7 October that SpaceXAI, the vendor, had not confirmed the incident, and Futurism wrote that it could not independently verify his claims.
If you or someone you know is struggling, free and confidential support is available. Find a helpline near you at Signpost.