Technosocietal Mechanization is a term I might float here.
I'm in a weird spot. I find myself surprised at how actively I defend these company's right to speech. Section 230 still seems like the bedrock that made it possible to have everyday people put words online to me, and I can't imagine renegotiating a way to preserve that while heaping liability onto those who offer online services.
Yet these completely mechanized processes, with no appeal, no humans, no way to get back into graces if something ever does goes awry, is curdling. I cant imagine mandating change, I can't imagine what we could demand that would be reasonable, but I also think this represents one of the worst possible sides of technology & the world; is most quintessentially de-humanizing.
One option is "the opposite of tort reform". Our legal system has been ratcheted one way that's a bit more anti-consumer, we could ratchet it back the other way: increase legally allowable civil damages again, allow more consumer protections against arbitration clauses in EULAs and Terms of Service agreements, stop limiting individual civil court cases in class action agreements, limit the reasons that class action lawsuits right now are the only lawsuits that major corporations are listening to, etc.
In theory, extremely mechanized companies could have to either fix their customer support operations or face an endless stream of lawsuits. You can let the market (again) decide whether they want to spend more money on customer service labor or lawyer labor.
Google boasts that it doesn't do customer service because it can't scale to meet the demands of their user base.
That can only work if their systems and processes never cause a user to have to go further than an FAQ page or community support.
Given that Google are fallible, you end up in a situation where users' have a poor experience and cannot contact someone to resolve it.