We have all been there at some point: a simple issue turns into an endless journey. An automated menu that doesn’t fit, recorded messages that repeat options without offering solutions, channel changes that force you to start again from scratch, agents with no context, or promised call-backs that never come. And, in the end, the most frustrating feeling of all: nobody takes responsibility.
Many companies have understood customer service as a function designed to contain demand, filter contacts and route them efficiently. But organising a service is not the same as turning it into an obstacle course. This is where Spain’s Customer Service Law (Ley de Servicios de Atención a la Clientela, or Ley SAC) brings about a fundamental change: having channels is no longer enough; companies must prove that they work, that they solve problems and that they are accessible.
That is one of its great strengths. It frames customer service as a measurable business responsibility, aligned with consumer rights. It requires personalised attention when requested, real accessibility, traceability and follow-up capability. It also requires companies to document and assess the quality of their service.
The Law is not against technology. It is against bad automation. Against the kind of design that passes the cost of internal inefficiency on to the customer: repeating details, explaining the problem several times or moving between disconnected channels. Technology remains essential, but it stops being acceptable when it replaces resolution with deflection, or accessibility with friction. The rule is clear: it cannot be used as the only means of customer service, and there must be a real option to speak to a person.
This ties in directly with the reality of the contact centre. When a company must guarantee human attention, follow-up, documentation and objective quality measurement, it is acknowledging that this function cannot be sustained with weak or defensive models. Serving customers well requires operational design, judgement, training, supervision and responsibility. In short, it requires professionals.
The value of the human touch
This point is particularly relevant. At a time when the future of customer service is often framed in terms of replacement, the Ley SAC introduces an important correction: there is a part of the service that can only be sustained through high-value employment. Not because technology adds nothing, but because some situations require understanding, context and the ability to take ownership. A bot can classify or speed things up, but it cannot manage emotional complexity, detect misunderstandings or piece together complex incidents.
That is why the Law can also be seen as protecting professional work that adds real value.
This becomes even clearer in the case of vulnerable groups. The quality of a service is not measured when everything works, but when difficulties arise: an older person who doesn’t understand an automated menu, someone with a hearing impairment who needs alternatives, or a user with low digital skills who cannot resolve an issue online. The Law focuses on these situations and requires adaptation, accessibility and appropriate attention.
This approach means rethinking many aspects: channel design, agent training, language, prioritisation criteria and internal coordination. It means moving from process-centred service to people-centred service. And that change is key, because for years we have measured how much was handled, but not always how it was handled or what impact it had on the customer experience.
In this context, the development of the forthcoming UNE 338 standard becomes especially relevant. It represents a step towards putting the Law into practice: translating legal obligations into auditable indicators, metrics and evidence. The Law defines the ‘what’, but the sector needs to make progress on the ‘how’.
And that is good news. Professionalising customer service is not about declaring it strategic, but about defining what good service means, how it is measured and which practices are unacceptable. Customer service is no longer valued simply for existing, and starts to be assessed on its real ability to solve problems without creating unnecessary friction.
The Ley SAC therefore opens up an opportunity that goes beyond compliance. It sets a limit on a model that has shifted onto the customer the effort of making up for internal shortcomings, and it pushes towards a more mature standard, where efficiency is not confused with barriers and automation does not replace responsibility.
The best customer service is not the one that gets customers out of the system fastest, but the one that helps them get out of their problem. If the Ley SAC helps us recover this idea, we will be witnessing the beginning of the end of customer service as an obstacle course.