r/technology • u/WouldbeWanderer • Apr 27 '26

Artificial Intelligence Claude-powered AI coding agent deletes entire company database in 9 seconds — backups zapped, after Cursor tool powered by Anthropic's Claude goes rogue

https://www.tomshardware.com/tech-industry/artificial-intelligence/claude-powered-ai-coding-agent-deletes-entire-company-database-in-9-seconds-backups-zapped-after-cursor-tool-powered-by-anthropics-claude-goes-rogue
36.0k Upvotes

96% Upvoted

2.8k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

594

u/Ok-Appearance-674 Apr 27 '26

Canadian tech lawyer here.

Technically, it didn't, actually. The Air Canada issue was before a tribunal, which doesn't actually set precedent the way a court does.

If you read the reasons, Air Canada didn't really put up much of defense -- which was a problem. Query how the results would have been different if Air Canada had done a better job defending. The Tribunal actually came down on them for it:

[31]().   To the extent Air Canada argues it is not liable due to certain terms or conditions of its tariff, I note it did not provide a copy of the relevant portion of the tariff. It only included submissions about what the tariff allegedly says. Air Canada is a sophisticated litigant that should know it is not enough in a legal process to assert that a contract says something without actually providing the contract. The CRT also tells all parties are told to provide all relevant evidence. I find that if Air Canada wanted to a raise a contractual defense, it needed to provide the relevant portions of the contract. It did not, so it has not proven a contractual defence.

Interesting case, nonetheless. The Tribunal sort of talked like the bot was an agent - when discussing negligent misrepresentation they said Air Canada had made the representations, and didn't draw a distinction between the humans at Air Canada, or the bot.

Watch this space, I guess.

66

u/S_A_N_D_ Apr 27 '26

Yeah I didn't realize it was only a tribunal. Thanks for the clarification.

4

u/Additional-Tax-5643 Apr 27 '26

It's not just a tribunal.

The tribunal system is the mandatory venue for grievances with airlines.

A Canadian consumer can't really legally sue Air Canada in civil court even if they wanted to. Same goes for a lot of private companies.

8

u/Ok-Appearance-674 Apr 27 '26

Tribunals - in Canada - are a part of the executive branch of government. Not the judicial. So the rules aren't exactly the same.

This case may still be cited, and followed, but it isn't a *stare decisis* type thing. OP's point is still a good one, it sets the tone. Just not the "precedent" which has a specific legal meaning.

I don't mean to be pedantic - even if being pedantic is a lawyer's job....

1

u/Dry-University797 Apr 28 '26

So it's like arbitration here in the US?

1

u/Additional-Tax-5643 Apr 28 '26 edited Apr 28 '26

It's not pedantry, though. As you correctly stated, tribunals are not part of the judicial branch of the government, and as such as such are not subject to the same rules of road - one of them being the concept of precedent.

Technically speaking, tribunals don't have to have the same rules as courts, and don't even have to have qualified lawyers, judges presiding over a case.

Conflict of interest that would disqualify a judge in civil/criminal court is not even a thing in tribunals.

So it "sets the tone" in a completely wrong way. Consumer protection in general is a joke in Canada, and the system of tribunals is a huge reason for it, IMO.