>Do you think that if you use your phone's autocomplete to make an offer to a customer it is somehow not binding?
Once again, just because ChatGPT said it, doesn't mean it's actually legally binding. This would be thrown out of court. It's no different than changing your name to "Free Chevy" and then claiming you're owed a free vehicle because those exact words appeared on the website.
Okay, and? If I put "Powered by GBoard" on my emails they are suddenly not binding?
This is as obviously non-binding as anything could possibly be. All the dealership has to do is say "no, we don't sell cars at that price".
The conclusion is that you probably shouldn't trust ChatGPT to represent your company.
I think it's ridiculous to use ChatGPT for things like customer support. This time it's someone writing a basic prompt and expecting the AI to do what it says, but next time it could very well be someone who's unfamiliar with ChatGPT (remember that lawyer that thought ChatGPT was a search engine, and when confronted by the judge about made-up cases, doubled down and asked ChatGPT if ChatGPT was telling the truth?) who honestly believes they're haggling over a car with a real representative. Best case scenario they feel cheated by the company, worst case scenario a judge forces the company to honour the deal.
Every law student learns about this case in Contracts during their first year of law school: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leonard_v._Pepsico,_Inc.
I'm sure some people said there obviously was no contract then either, but it was litigated at some length in federal court.
With respect to US common law, unless there is a statute or case "on point," it's potentially an open field.
A lot of AI-related litigation is happening right now to begin to settle some of these issues.