I. Introduction

Americans' increasing inability to speak to a real person in the event of a customer service issue has made it even harder to get help. Slowly but surely, the cause of guaranteeing consumers the “right to transfer” to a human representative is gaining traction in both D.C. and statehouses.

Having to deal with customer service has long been the bane of everyday Americans. Surveys have found that Americans’ annoyance with the quality of products and services has grown over time. The National Customer Rage Survey found that the number of Americans who’d experienced issues with a product or service reached 74% in 2023, more than doubling the amount who reported as much in 1976. In 2025, that number reached a new high of 77%. In the past, having to call customer support to solve pressing matters, such as contacting one’s financial institution, has proven a major time sink and source of irritation. But while waiting to talk to a human representative after multiple transfers or waiting for a call-back is frustrating, the prospect of not even having a human to speak to in the event of a product or service issue is even worse. As generative AI has proliferated since 2022, companies have increasingly supplemented, and at times outright replaced, human representatives with automated services, including AI chatbots for support. Though depicted as a pro-efficiency measure that helps customers come to resolutions, this shift is first and foremost a measure by corporations to cut costs, even if it makes the customer experience worse.

While still a largely dormant issue in comparison to other AI chatbot-related issues, the “right to talk to a human” is slowly making its way into the political mainstream. On September 27, Sen. Ruben Gallego (D-AZ) posted on X (formerly Twitter) that “Americans are sick of talking to unhelpful robots,” urging the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) to adopt rules to “give Americans the right to immediately transfer to a human in the U.S.” Gallego had introduced bipartisan legislation known as the Keep Call Centers in America Act in 2025 with the goal of keeping call center jobs and giving American consumers the right to talk to a human representative. The following day, California enacted the Right to Human Customer Service Act. The new law requires covered companies to disclose when a person is speaking to a chatbot in circumstances where a "reasonable person" would likely be "misled to believe that [they are] interacting with a human." The law also requires them to make a good-faith effort to put a human worker on the line within fifteen minutes of a request. As more companies limit customers' ability to speak to human representatives in the event of a service issue, it’s likely that the “right to talk to a human” will become a pressing demand.

II. Emerging Backlash and Policy Response

FCC RULEMAKING AND LEGISLATIVE DEVELOPMENTS

Gallego’s recent call for FCC rulemaking to guarantee a “right to talk to a human” is in response to the commission’s recent rulemaking on onshoring call centers to prevent job losses. Noting that certain provisions of the rulemaking mirror those in the “Keep Call Centers in America Act”, both Gallego and co-sponsor Sen. Jim Justice (R-WV) urged the final rule to guarantee a right to talk to a human. Their September 24 letter asks that customers be able to quickly “opt to speak to a human representative in the United States and be immediately transferred,” a proposal framed as both a job-saving and pro-consumer measure in one. Besides this legislation, the broader People-First Chatbot Act championed by Reps. Greg Casar (D-TX) and Valerie Foushee (D-NC) would include the right for customers to transfer to a human operator on request.

At the state level, California’s new Right to Human Customer Service Act (AB 1609) should help customers reach a human representative, though its provisions are limited. For one, it solely applies to businesses with annual revenue nationwide of more than $500 million. The requirement that companies make a good-faith effort to connect customers within fifteen minutes, which applies only during regular business hours, was watered down from an earlier five-minute standard amid industry opposition. Tech industry groups including Internet Works opposed the bill, with a group representative claiming the bill would “push agents to prioritize speed over actually solving the customer’s problem.” Moreover, the bill’s lack of a private right of action will likely limit the ability to hold companies that violate the law accountable given lack of state resources. Outside of California, more limited state-level proposals to require transparency in AI customer service have been introduced in states like New York.

PUBLIC OPINION AND CORPORATE RETREAT

Polling has broadly affirmed that Americans want the ability to speak to a human representative. A 2026 Johns Hopkins University poll focused on high-stakes fields such as healthcare and the judicial system found overwhelming majorities in favor of the ability to opt out of AI. In their survey of AI transparency proposals, 75 percent favored requirements that it be disclosed if they are speaking to an AI bot, a proposal about as popular as banning AI voice or face impersonation. A more detailed survey of Americans’ preferences concerning AI in customer service released in 2024 found a strong majority preferred that AI not be included in customer service. Though this poll is arguably outdated given significant advances in AI since then, Pew has found that 52 percent of Americans are more concerned than excited about AI, up from 37 percent in 2021, with young adults souring fastest, which gives reason to believe they are even more skeptical.

Despite public alarm, companies will keep pushing AI replacement of call-center workers to cut costs. Still, some have reversed initial support headcount cuts. Klarna, which embraced replacing customer support jobs with AI services, struggled with the transition and publicly announced plans to rehire some human workers. Salesforce, which cut its support staff from about 9,000 to 5,000 as it rolled out AI agents, has reportedly struggled as well, though the company denies reconsidering its workforce decisions. As companies dilute customer service, legislators should prevent it from being fully automated.

III. Conclusion

Given that Congress has already passed laws requiring airlines to provide 24/7 access to live agents, extending similar requirements to other businesses in key sectors is a natural next step. In today’s “annoyance economy,” where Americans’ phones are flooded with illegal robocalls, being unable to reach a real person when something goes wrong only compounds the frustration. A failure to implement rules that require human customer service options will come at a disproportionate expense to older Americans in particular, who have been hit hard by the transition to chatbots in the place of human support.

When reaching a real person at an agency or company becomes harder, AARP warns that criminals impersonating Social Security employees are using AI to make their calls and messages more convincing. Unfortunately, there is no reason to believe that the FCC under Brendan Carr will take real action to protect consumers’ ability to reach customer service. Carr’s call-center proposal focuses on onshoring and English proficiency and offers no AI-specific right to a human; on robocalls, the agency is moving in the wrong direction. An FCC draft considered on September 30 would loosen consumers’ ability to opt out of unwanted informational calls if adopted.

It's worth noting that efforts are also mounting in peer nations to give consumers the right to speak to a human representative. A law adopted in Spain, for instance, requires that companies provide a human option for customer service. The same law also sets a target of answering 95 percent of calls on average within three minutes. Moreover, an EU rule that went into force in June requires that providers of financial services sold online or by phone give consumers the ability to request human intervention. Congress can and must push for new rules to give consumers the ability to speak to a real person, in a timely manner, in the event of a product or service issue.