Ireland writes the human handoff into financial services rules
Consumers buying financial products online or by phone can now ask for human intervention instead of a purely automated decision. The rule covers a narrow slice of contacts, yet it changes what a containment number is allowed to leave out.
The Board Room · Leadership desk
What happened
- New Irish rules let consumers buying financial products or services online or over the phone request human intervention rather than rely solely on automated systems.
- The case for reading that rule as a signal to every contact centre comes from Liam Dunne, co-founder and CEO of the call path testing firm Klearcom, writing in Forbes.
- Dunne argues containment is a misleading target because a customer who gives up, calls back or switches channel can still be counted as contained.
Why it matters
- What it limits constraint For journeys inside the rule, a containment target sets an incentive the customer can override on request, which makes it unusable as the primary measure of whether automation worked.
- Who has to decide decision Firms have to choose whether context passing on escalation is funded as a core capability or left as an emergency exit, and that choice sets the true unit cost of the automated channel.
- Who's exposed exposure Responsibility lands on the plumbing rather than the model, so authentication, status lookups and routing become the parts of the stack a regulator could reach.
- What doesn't add up contradiction The column asks every contact centre leader to act on a rule whose scope it concedes is narrow, and the supplied record names no regulator or penalty, so how far the obligation travels is not yet knowable.
The mechanism worth understanding here is not the wording of the rule but what it does to a number. Containment counts the interactions that ended without reaching a human, and many contact centres have measured their automation that way for years [5]. A right to request human intervention makes part of that number determined by the customer rather than by the design of the flow [11]. For journeys inside the rule's scope, an escalation that fails to arrive stops being only a service defect.
The adoption figure offered as context deserves a second look. Eurostat is quoted as finding that 20% of EU enterprises with 10 or more employees used AI technologies in 2025, "up by 13.5%" on the prior year [2]. Read as percentage points, the base was 6.5% and adoption roughly tripled; read as relative growth, the base was about 17.6% and the year added a little over two points [16]. Those are different stories about how fast this is arriving, and the sentence as written does not settle which one holds.
The operationally useful part of Liam Dunne's argument is that the failures he describes sit outside the model. Authentication breaks, a back-end connection returns the wrong status, routing sends the call to the wrong team, and the agent receives none of the context the customer already supplied [7]. A vendor's intent-recognition accuracy is therefore not evidence that a right to reach a person is being honoured, because the chain that delivers the person is a separate system with its own failure points.
A skeptic would say this is one rule, in one country, for one sector, argued by a man who sells call path testing for a living [4]. Both observations are fair, and Dunne concedes the legal scope is specific while arguing the message travels wider [1]. The honest reading is that the supplied record does not establish a pattern: no statute, regulator, commencement date or penalty is named [9]. What it does establish is a design requirement whose cost does not depend on whether the law spreads.
Public opinion cuts in both directions at once. More than 70% of Europeans told a 2025 Eurobarometer survey that robots and AI improve productivity, while 84% said AI requires careful management to protect privacy and ensure transparency in the workplace [3]. The distance between those two figures is at most about fourteen points [10], and it reads less as opposition to automation than as a condition attached to it.
This quarter's decision is narrow. Either escalation is a built capability that carries the reason for contact, verified identity, steps already completed, relevant history and the point of failure [13], or it is an exit hatch that opens only when a customer repeats the word "agent" [14]. Next quarter's consequence is a staffing one: Dunne expects human agents to concentrate on exceptions, complaints, fraud concerns, bereavement and financial distress [15], which is a more expensive bench than containment targets were built to fund. He calls regulation a floor rather than a service strategy [8], and on the evidence supplied that is the right altitude for it.
What to watch
- Guidance specifying how a firm evidences that human intervention was offered, and within what time, would set the audit standard rather than the principle.
- Any supervisory return that asks for escalation-success data instead of containment data would move the metric argument from advice to obligation.
- Whether comparable rights appear outside financial services, or outside online and phone channels, in other member states.
Clarity's read
What the record supports and how the coverage leans. The claims behind it follow.
Reality
- Evidence30
- Adoption24
- Hype gap+22
- Incentives80
- Confidence58
Claim ledger
Ranked by verification strength, evidence, and original report placement.
- [1]
The author states that although the legal scope of the Irish rules is specific, the wider message should matter to every contact centre leader.
- [2]
Eurostat reported that 20% of EU enterprises with 10 or more employees used AI technologies in 2025, described in the column as up by 13.5% from the prior year.
- [3]
A 2025 Eurobarometer survey found more than 70% of Europeans believed robots and AI improve productivity, while 84% said AI requires careful management to protect privacy and ensure transparency in the workplace.
- [4]
Liam Dunne is co-founder and CEO of Klearcom, described as a global leader in customer call path testing and real-time contact centre optimisation.
- [5]
For years many contact centres have measured automation through containment: how many interactions ended without reaching a human.
- [6]
A customer who gives up, calls back or changes channels may still appear to have been contained, and any apparent saving disappears if the unresolved problem returns as a complaint or repeat contact.
- [7]
A system can recognise intent correctly and still fail: authentication can break, a back-end connection can return the wrong status, routing rules can send the call to the wrong team, and the agent may receive none of the context already provided.
- [8]
The column frames regulation as a floor rather than a service strategy.
- [9]
The supplied source does not name the statute or instrument, the responsible regulator, a commencement date or any penalty attached to the Irish human-intervention right.
- [10]
The gap between the two Eurobarometer figures is at most about 14 percentage points, since the productivity figure is stated only as more than 70%.
- [11]
New Irish government rules allow consumers buying financial products or services online or over the phone to request human intervention rather than rely solely on automated systems.
- [12]
The column argues leaders should instead examine first-contact resolution, repeat attempts, abandonment after failed recognition, time to recovery and transfer quality.
- [13]
When escalation happens, the system should pass the reason for contact, verified identity, steps already completed, relevant history and the point of failure.
- [14]
Escalation should not depend only on the customer repeating 'agent'; confidence scores, repeated intent failures, urgent language, vulnerability indicators and high consequence scenarios can signal that automation has reached its limit.
- [15]
The author expects the human agent role to become more specialised, focused on exceptions, complaints, fraud concerns, bereavement, financial distress and other situations where judgment, empathy and accountability matter.
- [16]
The phrase 'up by 13.5%' supports two incompatible base years: a percentage-point reading gives 6.5% in 2024, and a relative-growth reading gives about 17.6%.
Get this ledger inside ChatGPT. Ask about any of our stories and the answer brings its figure, each claim’s verdict and the sources. Free, no account.
Sources
1 independent publisher whose own reporting we read for this story.
- forbes.comThe Right To A Human Is The Next Test For Customer Service AI
1 article · August 31, 2026
Topics and entities
Follow any of these and your For You feed starts watching them — no settings page required.
Topics
- Contact Centre AIFollow
- EU AI RegulationFollow
- Enterprise AI AdoptionFollow
- Customer Service MetricsFollow
- Human-in-the-Loop EscalationFollow