China Sets First National Standard for AI Customer Service

China has put its first national standard governing how artificial intelligence and human customer service agents must work together into effect, a move designed to protect consumers who increasingly find themselves trapped in endless bot loops or blocked from reaching a real person.

The standard, GB/T 47746-2026, titled Customer Contact Service: Requirements for Collaboration Between Human and Intelligent Customer Service, took effect on September 1, 2026. It was published on May 25 by the State Administration for Market Regulation (SAMR) and the Standardization Administration of China, according to People’s Daily, the Communist Party’s flagship newspaper, which featured the measure in a page-seven investigation on September 11.

It is a recommended, or voluntary, national standard rather than a mandatory one — but experts say it carries real weight as a reference for regulators, consumer mediators and courts.

Why the Rules Were Needed

The standard arrives as AI customer service has spread rapidly across e-commerce, telecommunications, finance, travel and home appliances. The technology improves response times and cuts costs, but on some platforms it has become a roadblock: off-topic answers, looping canned phrases and hidden human-transfer options.

Data from the China Consumers Association (CCA) underscores the scale of the problem. In the first half of 2026, consumer associations nationwide accepted 986,000 complaints. After-sales service accounted for the largest share at 26.79%, according to the same People’s Daily investigation, with false AI promises, difficulty reaching human agents and inaccurate AI-generated content emerging as new complaint hotspots.

A search on a third-party consumer complaint platform for “AI customer service” returned more than 4,800 complaints, according to the People’s Daily investigation. As Legal Daily noted, many users report being bounced between mini-programs, service accounts and apps, or receiving repeated template replies instead of meaningful help.

The human cost is sometimes acute. People’s Daily recounted the case of a consumer named Ms. Wang, whose smart door lock failed one evening, leaving her family — including a six-month-old baby — locked out. She spent 50 minutes trying to reach a human agent through an automated system before finally hiring a locksmith.

“On some platforms, AI customer service is no longer purely a technical tool, but has been designed as an invisible filter net,” Guo Yaozong, deputy director of the CCA’s complaint department, told People’s Daily. “Going in circles on complex issues consumes consumers’ time and patience.”

The Four Pillars of the New Standard

Wu Yansong, president of the Caibo Institute of Smart Governance and a drafter of the standard, outlined four core requirements.

First, a clear and conspicuous human-service entry: companies may not bury the option to reach a person behind layers of menus. Second, a clear division of labor: AI handles high-frequency, standardized simple questions, while human agents take on complex disputes, financial disagreements, personal or property safety risks, and any case where a user explicitly requests a human. Pricing, refunds and compensation decisions must ultimately be confirmed by a person.

Third, smooth switching: when service moves between AI and human, the system must fully pass along interaction records — identity, history and problem description — so consumers are not asked to repeat themselves. Fourth, clear responsibility: enterprises are accountable for the content of their AI customer service replies and cannot evade responsibility by claiming content was auto-generated by an algorithm.

“This national standard is a recommended standard, but by no means is it toothless,” Liao Huaixue, legal counsel for the CCA, told People’s Daily. He explained that it will serve as an important reference for regulators conducting inspections and service-quality assessments, and as a basis for consumer rights claims and judicial decisions.

The Economics Behind the Friction

The drive toward automation is easy to understand. One industry insider cited by People’s Daily estimated the comprehensive monthly cost of a single human agent — salary, social insurance, training and workspace — at more than 3,000 yuan, while a basic AI customer service system rents for as little as 99 yuan per month and can handle the workload of dozens of agents.

But critics say some firms have optimized the wrong metric. Chen Yinjiang, deputy secretary-general of the Consumer Protection Law Research Society of the China Law Society, said customer service departments are often defined as cost centers whose primary KPI is cutting costs. Some insiders told People’s Daily that performance evaluations have shifted toward “AI interception rate” rather than problem-resolution rate, with some obstacle designs intercepting up to 70% of human-transfer requests.

“This is a wrong kind of cost reduction and efficiency improvement,” Su Haopeng, a professor and director of the Consumer Protection Law Research Center at the University of International Business and Economics, told People’s Daily. “The problem is not solved — it is only postponed and concealed, transforming into repeat inquiries, public-opinion fermentation, lost returns and brand damage.”

The legal position on AI promises is increasingly firm. The CCA’s Liao Huaixue said enterprises deploying AI customer service are part of the service chain, and answers given on official platforms represent the company’s stance. Under China’s Consumer Protection Law, operators must give truthful and clear answers to consumer inquiries — an obligation that does not change based on whether the service carrier is human or AI.

Implementation Gaps and Enforcement

Early evidence suggests compliance is uneven. On the standard’s first day, a reporter for the Yangtze River Daily tested ten customer service platforms and found widely varying experiences. Yangtze River Daily reported that only two platforms made human transfer “smooth,” with wait times ranging from about 30 seconds to as long as three minutes. One telecom hotline hung up on the caller after three verbal requests for a human.

The standard is one part of a broader 2026 regulatory push. The Interim Measures for the Administration of AI Anthropomorphic Interactive Services — jointly issued by the Cyberspace Administration of China, the National Development and Reform Commission, the Ministry of Industry and Information Technology, the Ministry of Public Security and SAMR — took effect on July 15, 2026. China’s Consumer Protection Law Implementation Regulations and E-Commerce Law also require operators to establish convenient complaint-handling mechanisms. Consumer associations in Zhejiang, Guangdong and Beijing have conducted regulatory talks with companies.

Gou Bocheng, a senior partner at Beijing Kangda Law Firm, urged regulators to convert the recommended standard into quantitative compliance indicators and to include experience metrics in service KPIs — not just AI interception rates.

What to Watch

The standard’s ultimate impact will depend on how aggressively it is enforced and how seriously platforms treat it as a competitive differentiator. Some leading enterprises have already begun adjusting, with a few promoting “transfer to human” buttons to their home pages and exploring deeper AI-human collaboration.

“Technology empowers consumption, and service must have warmth,” Chen Yinjiang said. He argued the key is pushing companies from a “cost-control orientation” toward a “consumer-experience orientation.”

Open questions remain. It is not yet clear how many major apps will add direct human-transfer buttons during the September compliance window, when the first consumer case mediated under the standard will appear, or how the new rules will interact in practice with the broader AI anthropomorphic services measures. As AI shopping agents roll out — including JD.com’s new Dongdong assistant announced September 9 — liability for AI purchasing errors remains only partly resolved.

For now, consumers have a codified reference for demanding a human agent, refusing to repeat themselves, and holding firms accountable for what their bots promise. Whether that reference becomes reality on the other end of a customer service line is the test ahead.