Right to Speak to a Human Instead of AI

Do You Have the Right to Speak to a Human Instead of AI?

There is no general legal right to speak to a human simply because an organisation uses a chatbot. However, you may have a right to meaningful human intervention where an important decision about you has been made solely through automated processing. Other consumer protection, financial services and equality rules may also require an organisation to provide an appropriate alternative to an AI-only process.

When does the right to human intervention arise?

The Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 amended the UK GDPR rules concerning automated decision-making. Under the amended framework, a decision is considered to be based solely on automated processing where there is no meaningful human involvement in taking that decision. A decision is significant if it produces a legal effect or has a similarly significant effect on the individual concerned.

Examples of significant automated decisions

Depending on the circumstances, the right to human intervention may be relevant where an automated system:

• refuses a credit application;

• rejects or restricts an insurance claim;

• materially changes an insurance premium based on profiling;

• suspends or closes a bank account;

• rejects a job application without meaningful human assessment;

• determines eligibility for a benefit or public service;

• terminates or restricts a contract;

• identifies an individual as presenting a fraud risk;

• refuses access to an important service; or

• makes another decision with serious financial, employment, legal or contractual consequences.

The Information Commissioner’s Office describes automated decision-making as decision-making without human involvement and recognises that additional protections apply where solely automated decisions have legal or similarly significant effects. The regulator’s guidance expects organisations to provide information and straightforward ways for individuals to request human involvement or challenge a decision. Some ICO guidance is being updated following the 2025 legislative changes, so it should be read alongside the current statutory wording.

An organisation may use AI to improve its services, but it should not use AI as an impenetrable wall preventing people from challenging important decisions, making complaints or exercising their legal rights.

My personal view is that, when contacting an organisation through a chatbot, particularly an insurance company, you should clearly state: “I would like to speak to a real person rather than continue communicating with an AI system.”

Although there is no general legal right to reject every chatbot, you may have a right to meaningful human intervention under the Data (Use and Access) Act 2025 and Article 22C of the UK GDPR where a significant decision affecting you has been made solely through automated processing.

This article provides general information about the law in England and Wales and does not constitute legal advice. The applicable rights and remedies depend on the individual circumstances of each case.