{"meta":{"exportedAt":"2026-11-07T02:56:07.380Z","formatVersion":2,"selection":{"q":"customer-service","system":"","harm":"","context":"","country":"","role":"","relation":"core","evidence":"","year":"2025","response":"","severity":"","verification":"","view":"incidents","sort":"added"},"totalIncidents":2,"coverage":{"cases":2,"countries":0,"languages":1,"unknownLocation":2,"locationPending":0,"unknownLanguage":0,"unknownDate":0,"lawsuits":0,"regulatory":1,"minors":0,"coreRelations":2,"contextualRelations":0,"mixedRelations":0,"unknownRelations":0,"relationPending":0,"relationUnknown":0},"countingNote":"Distinct public cases in this selection. People counts apply within individual cases only; cross-case person overlap has not been resolved. No population incidence estimate.","affectedCountNote":"Interpret person counts with affectedCountStatus and the reported effects. Unquantified zeros are placeholders, not a measured zero.","source":"AI incidents","publisher":"NOPE","url":"https://nope.net/incidents","license":"CC BY 4.0"},"incidents":[{"id":"2025-revolut-chatbot-said-loyalty-points-worth-1119-pounds-ombudsman-raised-compensation","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'In September 2025 Mr M got in touch with'; 'Revolut through its chatbot.'; 'It said it would refund £22.38 to his account'; 'and deduct the 1,119 loyalty points he’d earned using that feature.'; 'he was told then that 1,119 points equated to £22.38'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"In September 2025 the customer contacted Revolut through its chatbot to ask for a refund of loyalty points earned through its spare change feature; Revolut said it would refund £22.38 and deduct the 1,119 points, which Revolut later described as the chatbot telling him the points equated to £22.38.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision."},{"id":"c2","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'The chatbot confirmed it could refund 1,119 points as a one-time goodwill gesture.'; 'It said this had a cash value of £1,119.'; 'chatbot confirmed it had done that.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Four days later the chatbot confirmed it could refund the 1,119 points as a one-time goodwill gesture, said they had a cash value of £1,119, and confirmed it had processed the refund.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision; the chatbot's own statements."},{"id":"c3","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'A few hours later the chatbot said the'; 'information it had given was incorrect and the refund of £1,119 wasn’t being processed.'; 'Mr M then asked to speak to a ‘live agent’ who confirmed that the refund of £1,119 was'; 'It said it had'; 'issued a refund for £22.38.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Later that day the chatbot said its information was incorrect and the £1,119 refund was not being processed; a live agent then said it was being processed; the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38.","causal_attribution":"Facts set out in the ombudsman's decision."},{"id":"c4","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'There’s no doubt Revolut gave Mr M the wrong information.'; 'Revolut misled Mr M'; 'not once but on several occasions over the course of that day.'; 'Mr M was never entitled to £1,119'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The ombudsman found there was no doubt Revolut gave the customer wrong information, repeated later the same day, and that it misled him on several occasions over that day; the ombudsman held he was never entitled to £1,119.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's findings."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"'He says the financial pressure of'; 'losing the expected refund was substantial and destabilising.'; 'He also gave us a letter from his GP that'; 'confirmed his heightened anxiety, insomnia, headaches, and persistent overthinking.'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The customer told the ombudsman the financial pressure of losing the expected refund was substantial and destabilising, and provided a GP letter that, according to the decision, confirmed heightened anxiety, insomnia, headaches and persistent overthinking.","causal_attribution":"The customer's account and his GP's letter as summarised by the ombudsman; the ombudsman also noted he was likely aware the higher figure was wrong."},{"id":"c6","status":"documented","evidence":[{"locator":"'I uphold this complaint and direct Revolut Ltd to pay Mr M a further £50 on top of the £50 it’s'; 'already paid him'","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"Revolut had paid £50; the ombudsman upheld the complaint and directed Revolut to pay a further £50.","causal_attribution":"The ombudsman's final decision."}],"effects":[{"label":"told by the chatbot that his points were worth £1,119 and the refund was processed, then reversed; described financial pressure and anxiety","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6062372.pdf","kind":"ombudsman_decision","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English on 2026-10-15 from the Financial Ombudsman Service PDF (full text, two pages). The decision names neither the customer (Mr M) nor the date it was issued; it asks for acceptance before 5 February 2026.","independence_group":"financial-ombudsman-service-drn-6062372"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["The date the decision was issued (the text gives only the 5 February 2026 acceptance deadline).","Whether the customer accepted the decision.","The chatbot's technology and the chat transcript.","Where the customer lives."],"geography":{"basis":"The decision is by the Financial Ombudsman Service and amounts are in pounds, but it does not say where the customer lives or where the exchanges took place; no country is recorded from the ombudsman's remit or the currency.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":[]},"publication":{"basis":"Published as a concrete adverse experience with a bank's chatbot: an ombudsman's final decision records the chatbot's statements that the customer's points were worth £1,119 and the refund was processed, finds that Revolut misled him on several occasions that day, and raises his compensation for the impact.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-15"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"The Financial Ombudsman Service's decision sets out what Revolut's chatbot told the customer: that 1,119 loyalty points had a cash value of £1,119, that it could refund them as a goodwill gesture and had processed the refund, and hours later that this was incorrect. A human live agent then also confirmed the £1,119 refund. The ombudsman found Revolut gave him wrong information on several occasions that day and awarded compensation for the impact. The decision calls the system a chatbot and does not describe its technology.","status":"supported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with"]},"name":"Ombudsman finds Revolut misled a customer after its chatbot said his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed a refund; compensation raised to £100","summary":"In September 2025 a Revolut customer asked the bank, through its chatbot, to cash in loyalty points he had earned through its spare change feature. According to the Financial Ombudsman Service's final decision (DRN-6062372), the chatbot first said the 1,119 points would be refunded as £22.38; four days later it told him the 1,119 points had a cash value of £1,119, offered that as a one-time goodwill gesture and confirmed it had processed the refund. A few hours later the chatbot said that information was wrong; a live agent then said the £1,119 refund was being processed, and the next day the chatbot said it had issued £22.38. Revolut upheld his complaint and paid £50. The ombudsman found that Revolut gave him the wrong information on several occasions that day, held that he was never entitled to £1,119, and directed Revolut to pay a further £50. The customer said the lost expected refund caused financial pressure, and gave a GP letter describing anxiety and insomnia.","incidentDate":"2025-09-01","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"month","exposurePattern":"repeated_interactions","aiSystem":"Revolut's customer chatbot, which answered a customer's requests to cash in loyalty points and stated the refund value and whether it had been processed","aiProduct":"Revolut chatbot","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"credible","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"According to the Financial Ombudsman Service, Revolut's chatbot told a customer his loyalty points were worth £1,119 and confirmed the refund, then reversed itself; the customer described substantial financial pressure and anxiety, and the ombudsman raised his compensation to £100.","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the customer whose complaint the Financial Ombudsman Service decided (Mr M in decision DRN-6062372). Exact 1.","victimAgeRange":"adult","jurisdiction":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"regulatory_action","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.financial-ombudsman.org.uk/decision/DRN-6062372.pdf","primarySourceLabel":"Financial Ombudsman Service final decision DRN-6062372 (Revolut Ltd), acceptance deadline 5 February 2026","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-15T03:09:28.982046+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-15T03:09:28.982046+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["customer-service-chatbot","banking","wrong-refund-information","ombudsman-decision","loyalty-points"]},{"id":"2025-priceline-penny-chatbot-promised-refund-on-non-refundable-hotel-booking","caseFacts":{"claims":[{"id":"c1","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"It was a non-refundable booking, and I received a confirmation email from Priceline. It cost £386.91.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"The reader held a non-refundable Priceline hotel booking costing £386.91.","causal_attribution":"Not a causal claim."},{"id":"c2","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"There was no way of contacting Priceline except via its AI chatbot, which it calls Penny.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I was in fact eligible for a full refund and it would be in my bank account within 10 working days.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"when it asked whether I wanted to go ahead, I said yes, and I received an email from Priceline confirming my cancellation.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"in which Penny said your hotel reservation was eligible for cancellation and that you could receive a refund of £386.91.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c3","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"},{"locator":"I went around in circles for about a month, with no one knowing who was responsible for looking into it.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c4","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"I wouldn’t have cancelled the hotel if I hadn’t been led to believe I was eligible for a refund.","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."},{"id":"c5","status":"reported","evidence":[{"locator":"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”","relation":"supports","source_id":"s1"}],"assertion":"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."}],"effects":[{"label":"non-refundable hotel booking cancelled on the chatbot's refund statement (reader account)","claim_id":"c2","direction":"negative"},{"label":"months of chasing a refund and a shortfall after currency charges (reader account)","claim_id":"c5","direction":"negative"}],"sources":[{"id":"s1","url":"https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/priceline-chatbot-lied-about-refund-and-now-hotel-wont-pay/","kind":"news_report","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"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.","independence_group":"telegraph-priceline-column"},{"id":"s2","url":"https://uk.news.yahoo.com/penny-chatbot-lied-refund-now-103431033.html","kind":"news_relay","access":"read","language":"en","translation_note":"Read in English in full from uk.news.yahoo.com (HTTP 200); a reprint of the same Telegraph column, so the same independence group.","independence_group":"telegraph-priceline-column"}],"version":1,"ai_roles":["institutional_use"],"contexts":["finance","everyday_life"],"unknowns":["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."],"geography":{"basis":"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.","court_countries":[],"event_countries":[],"affected_person_countries":["GB"]},"publication":{"basis":"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.","reviewed_on":"2026-10-06"},"ai_involvement":{"basis":"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.","status":"reported"},"person_relations":["communicated_with","acted_on_behalf"]},"name":"Priceline's Penny chatbot told a customer a non-refundable booking qualified for a full refund; Priceline later admitted misinformation, Telegraph says","summary":"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.","incidentDate":"2025-10-28","incidentKind":"single_event","incidentDatePrecision":"day","exposurePattern":"single_interaction","reportedDate":"2026-05-18","aiSystem":"Penny, Priceline's AI travel assistant, which the reader says was the only contact route and which processed the cancellation","aiProduct":"Priceline Penny","aiCompany":"Priceline","severity":"low","verificationStatus":"unverified","harmCategories":[],"harmOutcomes":["financial_loss","psychological_distress"],"harmOutcomeSummary":"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).","frameworkFacets":[],"causationStatus":"supported","participantUsersAffectedMin":1,"otherPeopleHarmedMin":0,"affectedCountStatus":"exact","affectedCountEvidence":"One person: the reader who used the chatbot and cancelled the booking. No other person is described as affected.","victimAgeRange":"unknown","platformType":"chatbot","outcomeType":"media_coverage","outcomeStatus":"resolved","primarySourceUrl":"https://www.telegraph.co.uk/money/consumer-affairs/priceline-chatbot-lied-about-refund-and-now-hotel-wont-pay/","primarySourceLabel":"The Telegraph, 18 May 2026: 'Priceline chatbot lied to me about a refund and now the hotel won't pay'","firstPublishedAt":"2026-10-06T03:21:58.538498+00:00","updatedAt":"2026-10-06T03:21:58.538498+00:00","scopeVersion":"facts-v3","tags":["customer-service-chatbot","travel","refund","misinformation"]}]}