You only referenced two companies...
Anyway, I don't think it contradicts my point? Your company exist, mom and pops exist and there's a whole spectrum between them, so it's not generalizable.
Name a major company, then try to contact customer service and interact with an actual human.
Even if they do have a contact phone number, good luck navigating the mazes of voice prompts.
Amazon isn't actually so bad about this, but I couldn't tell you if their CSR chat bot is an actual person or mid-level AI by now.
Perhaps though this should be an example of good customer service where talking to a human is easy, and not lumped in with the likes of Google where its impossible.
Perhaps your experience with the online shop is different, but frankly they're in my "good" column, not my "bad" column.
Long ago when Google tried to launch its very first phone somewhere in Europe I can distinctly remember that it was initially not allowed to because of some regulation that mandated a company selling telephones to have a customer service.
Can't remember if they eventually found a loophole or if the regulations were changed.
Most of the companies who customers try these "games" against are places like Google and Meta that literally do not provide a way for the average customer to reach a human. None.
Those have got it coming for them, the megacorps' stance on this is despicable and far worse than the customers directly reaching execs who could instantly change this but don't because it would cut into their $72 billion per year net profit.
This is a case where laws simply did not catch up to the digital era. In the brick and mortar era it was by definition possible to reach humans.
I get that your company was smaller and probably did allow for a way to reach a human but that's not generalizable.