You can assign blame however you like, but it won't help your IPv6 customers/users to reach your servers.
I'll also add that I've been in the employ of a company that does business exclusively in Asia for years. We've as yet not encountered this problem.
This data would be better than my anecdotal story about an unnamed company, so please provide any you have.
When I say the issue has not arisen, I mean it. We have two infrastructures, one is basically 8 years old, the other is about three. At the time the latter was setup, our provider wasn't even ready to deploy IPv6 widely, they were still learning and testing with a handful of select customers.
Both legacy and modern run solely on IPv4, and we've not had cause to revisit the issue.
When we get reports of network problems not attributable to simple user error, the cause is almost always either misconfigured routers breaking path MTU discovery, or ridiculously strict firewall rules that don't even allow port 443 out.
I don't even know how many of our users have IPv6 at all. I have no reason to know nor any good way to measure it short of calling all the ISPs or sending people to our customer's homes to check.
(Note: APNIC ran out of IPv4 addresses more than two years ago[2], and has had rapid internet expansion in the mean time. Asians are heavy IPv6 adopters.)
Such a thing you imagine could conceivably be implemented, but it would be an extra thing for the IPv6-only ISPs to implement, and they do not have the incentive to do so. The current companies with servers do have an incentive to be reachable by IPv6-only customers, and are the only parties who can reasonably solve the situation, by implementing IPv6.
1) https://www.iis.se/blogg/ipv6-nar-sent-inforande-kostar-peng... (Swedish)
2) https://www.apnic.net/publications/news/2011/final-8