Such legislation isn't theoretical or difficult, India already has their new IT law rules:
>The IT rules 2021 provide for creating avenues for grievance redressal apart from Courts and ensure that the Constitutional rights of Indian citizens are not contravened by any Big-tech Platform by ensuring new accountability standards for SSMIs.
>During the extensive public consultations on the ITRules, the Minister of State for Electronics & Information Technology and Skill Development & Entrepreneurship, Shri Rajeev Chandrasekhar had articulated the stand of the Government that - safety and trust of every Digital Nagrik, and robust grievance redressal system to ensure accountability of all Internet platforms offering a service or product, was an unambiguous goal and that all grievances must be 100% addressed.
>The Grievance Appellate Committee (GAC) is a critical piece of overall policy and legal framework to ensure that Internet in India is Open, Safe & Trusted and Accountable. The need for GAC was created due to large numbers of grievances being left unaddressed or unsatisfactorily addressed by Internet Intermediaries. GAC is expected to create a culture of responsiveness amongst all Internet Platforms and Intermediaries towards their consumers.
Not only this, but most banks have to be members of a consumer arbitration body, or need to be overseen by an ombudsman.
But this still wouldn't stop any bank from using their contractual rights to terminate a relationship if it may be unprofitable or risky to them.
And to be blunt: Considering the vital nature of email to modern communications and livelihood, if free email cannot include a method to regain access, free email should not exist. The amount of damage Google just not caring about people's problems causes is immense.
We actually do need to demand customer service for free services.
They're exploiting our information, and using the fact that they're exploiting us "for free" to give nothing back.
Problem solved then. Companies giving away things "for free" is the original dark pattern.
It makes sense because email addresses have become the defacto gateway to our entire digital lives. Losing access to an email causes significant financial and emotional stress. It should be treated like an essential utility. There needs to be a minimum level of service even if the product is free.
Truth. People using Gmail can pick one of the options below:
A) "If you are not paying for the product, then you are the product"
B) "If you’re not paying for it; you are the product"
In all seriousness, how does it even make sense to regulate expensive customer support for a free product?
If you do, you may not have any free products anymore. But perhaps we'd be better off having decent customer support with no free products.
As for paid products, it does make some sense to have some minimum customer support, but I'll be surprised if there's a proper way to word the legislation to achieve what we want it to achieve.