I'm not entirely sure that this would be a bad thing. It would set the expectation in customers' minds that the device is always listening, which is at least somewhat true.
If, even with that expectation, enough people still use "voice assistant" technology for a judge to consider the tech to be "in general public use"[1], the bright line test defined by Kyllo v United States is triggered and the police no longer need a warrant to use the technology (in the abstract - they don['t need to use your hardware) to view "details of a private home that would previously have been unknowable without physical intrusion"[2].
Normalizing the expectation that previously private areas (like the inside of your home) might be recorded and sent to a remote 3rd party will eventually result in everyone losing some of their 4th amendment protection against search and seizure.
[1] http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/533/27.html
[2] Ibid.
It's like the misguided Prop 65 signs that are in practically every commercial building in California so instead of warning people about dangerous levels of hazardous chemicals, they get a meaningless sign in every building for hazards that are no worse than if they were walking down the street or sitting at home.