AI that Puts an End to "Crying Oneself to Sleep" and AI that Exhausts Customer Service: The Democratization of Complaints Has Begun

AI that Puts an End to "Crying Oneself to Sleep" and AI that Exhausts Customer Service: The Democratization of Complaints Has Begun

AI Takes Over the "Knowledge" and "Energy" Required to Write Complaints

The purchased product is different from the description. Insurance money is not paid. Despite a flight cancellation, adequate compensation is not received. Even with such grievances, not everyone proceeds to file a formal complaint or mediation request. They may not know where to contact, lack time to research the system, lack confidence in writing, or fear being rejected by the company again. Even when consumers have rights, there are numerous invisible barriers before they can exercise them.

Generative AI is rapidly lowering these barriers. By inputting contract details and the course of events, it can organize the issues, refine them into polite language, and sometimes even suggest relevant laws, case precedents, or mediation bodies. It can transform a draft written in anger into a calm document, or interpret a foreign language response and reply in another language. What once required consulting a specialist or hours of searching can now be shaped into the "first step" in a matter of minutes.

A symbol of this change is the increase in complaints being filed with a German complaint-handling body. According to a report by F.A.Z., the insurance ombudsman, which mediates disputes between insurance companies and consumers outside of court, has been receiving 14-page documents filled with case law from users who do not appear to be legal experts. The documents are lengthy and well-organized in appearance, but sometimes the cited courts or rulings do not even exist.

According to the ombudsman's public statistics, the number of complaints received increased from 21,548 in 2024 to 28,904 in 2025, a growth rate of about 34%. In 2026, 10,376 complaints were received in the first quarter and 8,490 in the second quarter, reaching 18,866 in the first half alone.

Similar trends are seen in the travel and transportation sectors. The travel and transportation mediation body received about 29,400 complaints in the first half of 2026, more than 50% higher than the same period the previous year, marking a record high, with a possibility of exceeding 60,000 for the full year. However, not all of this increase can be attributed to the influence of generative AI. Events causing complaints, such as bad weather, strikes, flight cancellations, and delays, also fluctuate. Moreover, there is no definitive way to determine AI usage solely from the text.

The important thing is not to simplify it as "AI increased complaints," but to see it as the proliferation of a tool that brings people who would have given up halfway to the entrance of filing a complaint.


The Real Strength of AI Lies in "Guidance" Rather Than Complex Language

When it comes to complaint letters generated by AI, it is easy to imagine intimidating texts filled with legal jargon. However, the greatest value for consumers is not in making the text look impressive, but in helping them organize which system to bring their issue to.

When an issue is not resolved at a company's inquiry desk, the next step could be the industry's ombudsman, a government agency, a general consumer mediation body, or even court. For those unfamiliar with the system, choosing where to submit can be a high hurdle in itself. Generative AI can narrow down the candidates based on the type of service, contract country, purchase date, and the response from the other party. Mediation officials interviewed by F.A.Z. also acknowledge the effect of AI in informing consumers of their potential rights and filing destinations.

This can be called a democratization of exercising rights. AI is gradually breaking down the situation where only those proficient in reading and writing, knowledgeable in law, and having the time and money to consult experts have an advantage. For those with disabilities or language barriers, or those who find it difficult to explain events in order under intense stress, draft support is a significant help.

However, guidance and legal judgment are different matters. While AI can create plausible texts, it does not guarantee that the claims are factual, align with current legal systems, or are applicable to individual cases. "Definitive statements" do not necessarily equate to "correct statements."


Success Stories Shared on Social Media—Examples Where a Few Minutes of Drafting Led to Compensation

The original article is newly published, and there are not yet many visible social media reactions to the article itself. However, experiences of using generative AI for complaints and claims have been repeatedly shared on platforms like Reddit and LinkedIn. While these are not statistical surveys, they vividly reflect what users and recipients expect and struggle with.

 

A notable positive example is a Reddit post about using generative AI for a compensation claim against an airline. The poster's partner incurred additional costs due to a delayed connecting flight and sought compensation from the airline, which was initially rejected. They then used ChatGPT to read the airline's response, check the UK's air passenger protection rules, and draft a reply in the language of the other country. Ultimately, a compensation offer exceeding the initially requested amount was made.

What should not be overlooked in this experience is that the poster did not send the AI's output as is. They confirmed online whether the applicable system existed, specified the necessary legal grounds, and left fields like flight number, date, and account information blank to fill in later. The time spent drafting was about 5 to 10 minutes. Thus, the success was supported not only by AI's writing ability but also by human fact-checking and specific instructions.

On social media, there are also positive opinions such as "AI can help turn emotional situations into fact-centered texts" and "correcting typos and shortening to one or two pages is considerate to the recipient." Some people deliberately borrow a formal style out of fear that their own words might be taken lightly. AI has the potential to not only empower those with loud voices but also give a "form that communicates" to those who have found it difficult to speak up.


Cries from the Recipients—Nonexistent Facts and "Inflation of Legal Style"

Conversely, serious concerns are emerging from companies and public services. A manager of a small software company shared an experience where a customer argued, based on a conversation record, that "ChatGPT says this feature exists," regarding a function the company does not actually provide. When AI confidently explains incorrect premises, companies must start by denying product descriptions that do not actually exist.

In discussions on LinkedIn regarding healthcare and public sectors, there are concerns that complex, legalistic complaint letters generated by AI may obscure the true needs of the individuals requiring support. Medical professionals worry about examples where AI suggests nonexistent treatment options, leading patients to believe they were denied treatment they should have received. There is also concern that if citizens create opinions on administrative plans using AI, and the administration also uses AI to classify and respond, it could lead to a situation where "computers talk to each other" about significant regional issues.

What is occurring here is an "inflation of legal style." Everyone can now quickly create lengthy documents with headings, articles, and demands. The recipient must handle more impressive texts more cautiously, refer them to the legal department, and craft defensive responses. The user then has AI read the response and create an even longer counterargument. If both sides enhance the volume and formality of their texts using AI, the problem they want to solve remains singular, but only the words to process increase.

The length of the document itself is not inherently bad. Detailed explanations are necessary for complex damages. However, if the purpose of the complaint, the date of occurrence, the other party's response, and the desired resolution are buried, processing time will extend. For mediation bodies that cannot increase staff at the same rate as the number of complaints, the burden of deciphering low-value documents of a dozen or so pages cannot be ignored. Improving access could lead to another access barrier in the form of prolonged waiting times.


"Increased Complaints" Also Indicate a Functioning System

Nevertheless, the increase in complaints should not be viewed solely as a nuisance phenomenon. Even if rights are written in law, they lack effectiveness if ordinary people cannot use them. In an interview with F.A.Z., the head of Germany's Federal General Consumer Mediation Body positively viewed the ability for people to exercise their rights with low barriers as an important sign of a functioning democracy.

What generative AI has brought to light is not just the "overproduction" of complaints but also the fact that traditional systems have implicitly made proficiency in writing, searching, and tolerance for technical terms a condition for participation. Prohibiting AI or dismissing complaints due to AI-like writing styles could once again distance those most in need of support from the entrance.

What is needed on the recipient side is not the detection of AI use but the structuring of information. Instead of relying solely on freeform text, allow input of occurrence dates, contract numbers, previous communications, evidence materials, and specific desired resolutions separately. When a long document arrives, first extract the issues and demands, and separate legal citations that need verification. Even when using AI to assist with classification and summarization, human confirmation is necessary for acceptance, fact recognition, and final responses. The important thing is not "whether AI wrote it," but "what happened, what is being sought, and what evidence exists."

Moreover, if companies counter with standard AI responses, efficiency may increase, but there is a risk of losing trust. Many complaints seek not just monetary compensation but also explanations, apologies, prevention of recurrence, and a sense of being treated properly. If recipients lose sight of human circumstances, users may have AI create even stronger words. The technology to process text and the dialogue to satisfy people are not the same.


"Five Principles" to Follow When Writing Complaints with AI

For consumers, generative AI is a powerful assistant but not a proxy. To use it safely and effectively, the following five principles must be observed.

First, organize the facts chronologically in advance. Separate the purchase date, contract details, problems that occurred, contact dates with the other party, responses, and actual losses, and do not mix speculation with facts.

Second, narrow down the desired resolution to one or two. Clearly specify whether you want a refund, repair, contract cancellation, explanation, or apology, so AI is less likely to expand unnecessary issues.

Third, verify the names of laws, articles, case precedents, and administrative bodies with primary information. Even if you instruct AI to "not write unverified grounds" or "indicate uncertain points as uncertain," final confirmation is necessary. Mixing in just one nonexistent precedent can lower the credibility of the entire legitimate claim.

Fourth, do not input personal information more than necessary. During the AI input stage, use placeholders or temporary symbols for names, addresses, customer numbers, insurance policy numbers, account information, and health information, and insert them yourself after completion for safety.

Fifth, shorten it before sending. What should be conveyed to the other party is not the magnitude of anger but the verifiable facts and the desired response. It is advisable to request "compressing to about one page, removing duplication, intimidating expressions, and unverifiable legal claims." If there are attachments, it is more readable to list them and show the correspondence rather than transcribing everything into the main text.

Above all, it is humans who press the send button. Even if the text is created by AI, the sender is the user, and the responsibility for the content remains with the user.


The Design Challenge of "After Widening the Entrance" in Japan

The changes occurring in German mediation bodies are not irrelevant to Japan. It is entirely conceivable that AI-refined submissions will increase at corporate consultation desks, municipalities, consumer life consultations, and various ADRs. While it will become easier for those who are anxious about writing in Japanese or unaware of the system to connect to support, the desks will need to prepare for longer texts, misinformation, and duplicate submissions.

The future issue is not whether it is permissible to write complaints with AI, but how to operate a system with a widened entrance without clogging it and ensuring fairness. Templates to make submissions short and accurate, input formats that make it easy to verify supporting materials, sorting according to urgency and the magnitude of damage, mechanisms to protect staff, and principles to retain human judgment in final decisions will be necessary.

Generative AI has suddenly given "strong texts" to people in weak positions. This power reduces silent resignation and activates dormant rights. However, strong texts are not always correct, and long texts are not always deep. Consumers have the responsibility to verify, and companies and administrations have the responsibility to see the humans behind the text.

Whether the democratization of complaints can be a societal advancement or becomes a war of attrition with only an increase in words is not decided by AI. It depends on how much the users and recipients can uphold facts, conciseness, and human judgment.


Source URL

Related Articles