When you ask an assistant whether a law covers your case, it can pick a rule that sounds right but does not fit your facts. It may apply EU flight rules to a trip they do not cover, use EU law when UK law applies, or promise compensation that the rule excludes. A claim built on the wrong rule gets refused and costs you weeks.
Consumer rules turn on small facts, such as where a flight departs, which airline operates it, or how many days of notice you got. The assistants in these accounts answered from a general picture of the rule and did not check those conditions unless the user pushed.
Give the assistant every deciding fact up front, and ask it to reason case by case and list what it is unsure about. Then open the official page for the rule (for example the EU Your Europe page, the UK regulator or the US agency) and check the assistant's answer before you draft or send anything. If the page and the assistant disagree, trust the page. Treat the assistant as a drafter, not as the authority.
The poster says ChatGPT told him he could claim EU261 compensation for a schedule change the airline announced months ahead. Replies say a change announced that early gives no compensation, only the choice of a refund.
The poster says the claim succeeded under UK261, but that he had to tell the assistant directly to look at UK law because it defaulted to EU law. He says he checked online that the laws were real before he sent the letter.
The author says he pushed back on the assistant twice about whether EU261 covered a flight from Norway, and checked the EU passenger rights page before he relied on it. He says he made every final decision and sent every filing himself.