As an example, I can't use my main email address for an Apple ID account because apparently somebody else set it as their backup email and I may have carelessly clicked the accept link when I got the confirmation. I talked to a human Apple support person and his higher level colleague and was told that's probably what happened but they can't know for sure and even if they did, they can't fix it. The end. Bye.
It may be the best most honest answer, but a lot of people would rather have a name for what's wrong with them, even if there's no cure, and a treatment, even if it doesn't work.
Mandating real people COULD help, bust sometimes it doesn't - yet this is by design. For example, Amazon Seller Support renders humans into bots because they can only reply with templates (it's like they have humans teaching machines what to reply from a fixed set of replies) - of course this is a shitshow.
If you get a cryptic reply, you have to figure it out, just to reply and get the same response, and then to finally get a "case is closed".
See the whole world of educational music youtubers, they are well within their rights to do quite a few things, but in reality they can't even perform certain short guitar riffs themselves without getting flagged.
Being able to appeal an automated decision to a real person is a mandatory requirement under the GDPR.
https://ec.europa.eu/info/law/law-topic/data-protection/refo...
That seems to me (IANAL etc) like it could be used to argue that you need to be able to appeal to a real person who actually has the power to do something about the problem. Because these examples like in the GP(?) where one gets hold of a real person who claims they can't do anything because "that's just how the system works"... Well, then they're not really "a person" in the sense that I'm fairly sure has to be the one meant here; they're just another cog in the automated means.