Technology should serve people, not replace dialogue
In Portugal, the Socialist Party has introduced legislation to guarantee consumers the right to speak with a human being when navigating company services — a quiet but significant assertion that technological progress must not quietly abandon those least equipped to follow it. The proposal amends a 1996 consumer protection law to ensure that automation and digital channels coexist with accessible human support, rather than replace it entirely. At its heart, the measure asks an enduring question: when efficiency serves the many but excludes the few, who bears the cost of that bargain?
- Portugal's Socialist Party has tabled legislation that would legally oblige companies to keep a human contact option available alongside their digital and automated systems.
- The urgency is sharpest for the most exposed: elderly citizens, people with disabilities, those with low digital literacy, non-Portuguese speakers, and anyone without reliable internet access risk being locked out of essential services entirely.
- Consumer advocacy group DECO has documented a concrete gap between what companies advertise as support and what vulnerable users can actually reach — lending empirical weight to what might otherwise seem a symbolic gesture.
- The bill does not seek to dismantle automation or burden companies with round-the-clock staffing; it simply demands that the human option remain real, reachable, and not quietly buried beneath layers of chatbots and digital forms.
- The proposal lands as a marker in a widening tension: as businesses optimize for scale and cost through technology, consumer protection law is being asked to catch up — or risk becoming irrelevant to the people who need it most.
Portugal's Socialist Party has proposed amending the country's foundational consumer protection law — in place since 1996 — to add an explicit right to human contact when dealing with companies and service providers. The move comes as traditional customer service has been steadily displaced by websites, apps, chatbots, and automated response systems that, while efficient, can leave certain consumers with nowhere to turn.
Deputy Nuno Fazenda, who leads the proposal, frames it as a defense of the vulnerable. "No one should be prevented or hindered from reaching support," he said. "We must ensure that consumer treatment remains human." The groups the party has in mind are specific: elderly citizens, people with disabilities, those with limited digital literacy, non-Portuguese speakers, and anyone without regular internet access. For these populations, a digital-first service model is not merely inconvenient — it can mean being shut out of essential services altogether.
The proposal draws on research by DECO, a leading Portuguese consumer advocacy organization, which found a measurable gap between the support companies claim to offer and what consumers can actually access in practice.
The Socialist Party is not calling for a ban on automation, nor demanding that companies staff call centers at all hours. The ask is narrower and more principled: that a human option genuinely exist and remain reachable. What the bill ultimately surfaces is a question about the direction of technological change — not whether to embrace it, but whether its gains should be allowed to come at the quiet cost of excluding those least able to adapt.
Portugal's Socialist Party has introduced legislation that would enshrine a consumer's right to speak with a human being when dealing with companies and service providers. The proposal amends the country's foundational consumer protection law, dating to 1996, by adding human contact to the explicit catalog of rights that businesses must honor.
The initiative arrives at a moment when traditional customer service—the phone call, the in-person visit, the letter—has been steadily displaced by digital alternatives. Companies now route inquiries through websites, mobile apps, digital forms, chatbots, and automated response systems. These tools offer genuine advantages: faster processing, round-the-clock availability, instant access to information. But they also create a problem the Socialist Party now seeks to address: what happens when a customer's situation is too complex or unusual for an algorithm to handle, and no human is available to help?
Nuno Fazenda, the deputy who leads the proposal, frames it as a defense of the vulnerable. "No one should be prevented or hindered from reaching support," he said. "We must ensure that consumer treatment remains human." The language is careful but the concern is clear. Technology should serve people, not replace the possibility of actual dialogue in transactions that affect their lives.
The party identifies several groups for whom this guarantee matters most: elderly citizens, people with disabilities, those with limited digital literacy, people who don't speak Portuguese fluently, and anyone without regular access to the internet. For these populations, the shift to digital-first customer service isn't merely inconvenient—it can mean being locked out of essential services entirely. A pensioner who doesn't use email cannot easily dispute a billing error. A person with a hearing impairment may struggle with automated phone systems. Someone with low literacy in the digital realm faces a maze of buttons and forms designed for fluent users.
The proposal draws support from research by DECO, a major Portuguese consumer advocacy organization, which documented real difficulties people face in actually reaching a human representative through many companies' digital support systems. The report identified a gap between what companies claim to offer and what consumers can actually access.
The Socialist Party acknowledges the genuine benefits of technological solutions—speed, availability, efficiency. But it argues that these gains should not come at the cost of excluding people from the ability to seek individualized help when circumstances demand it. The law would not ban automation or require companies to staff call centers around the clock. It would simply guarantee that a human option exists and remains accessible.
What emerges from this proposal is a fundamental question about who technology serves and who it leaves behind. As companies optimize for scale and cost, the people most likely to suffer are those least equipped to navigate purely digital systems. The Socialist Party's bill suggests that consumer protection law must evolve to match the reality of how companies now operate—not to reject innovation, but to ensure innovation doesn't become a tool for quietly excluding the most vulnerable from the services they depend on.
Notable Quotes
No one should be prevented or hindered from reaching support. We must ensure that consumer treatment remains human.— Nuno Fazenda, Socialist Party deputy leading the proposal
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why does this matter now? Chatbots and automation have been around for years.
They have, but they've reached a tipping point. Companies aren't offering human contact as an option anymore—they're making it nearly impossible to find. The shift from "we also have a chatbot" to "chatbots are all we have" happened quietly.
Who actually gets hurt by this?
The people you'd expect: elderly folks who didn't grow up with screens, someone deaf who can't use a phone tree, a migrant worker whose Portuguese is shaky. Also anyone with a genuinely complicated problem that doesn't fit the FAQ.
But doesn't automation make things faster and cheaper?
It does, for the company. For the customer with a real problem, it often means hours of frustration or giving up entirely. Speed is only valuable if you can actually reach someone.
Is this law saying companies can't use chatbots?
No. It's saying chatbots can exist, but there has to be a way to reach a person. A real escape hatch, not a hidden one.
What happens if a company ignores this law?
That's the question the law will have to answer. But the point is to make human contact a legal right, not a courtesy some companies offer when they feel like it.
Do other countries do this?
Some are starting to think about it. But Portugal would be early—making it explicit that technology serves people, not the other way around.