That's the reality for companies with high volume and low margins. The number of customer service representatives per user they can hire is proportional to their profits per user. You can't change that with legislation. A company making 1/10th the profit per user cannot spend as much on customer service. At best, you can make laws that effectively ban companies from having low margins.
If I buy something from my local dollar store, they have a no return policy. The items are typically low quality. But they cost a dollar.
My cell company, on the other hand, charges around $60/month for a phone plan, so they have more customer service representatives.
In almost every developed country in the world except the United States, it would be illegal to sell a defective item then refuse to refund or replace it, whether it's $1 or $10,000. Consumer protection regimes are a real thing that exist, although maybe not in your jurisdiction.
So yes, you can legislate that. By making merchants bear the cost of defects and take a loss on replacing the product, you make it no longer a viable business model to constantly sell broken stuff. It's a proper alignment of incentives.
In a world where Google is being sued for antitrust in part because of a monopoly they built by giving stuff away for free, perhaps making it harder to have a "low margins, but we aren't accountable for anything" business is not a bad thing.
You're also building a strawman - that Google would need to spend a lot per user on customer service to start actually providing customer service instead of refusing to do so for most of its products.
It would need to spend a lot in absolute dollars, sure, but the vast majority of users would have precisely zero support interactions. No one is saying that Google should have an army of 500,000 support reps. Just that it should actually be possible to contact Google without knowing someone who works there.
To expand on the dollar store example, they will take back an item that was sold outright broken or defective (although I've never seen anyone actually return in item to the dollar store). They don't have to take back all their low quality products when they perform poorly or break, nor do they offer customer support.
I think you're building a strawman here. This is a thread about Google having poor customer service, and you're trying to frame it as if Google is refusing to refund defective products. Those are not the same. Google refunds or replaces defective products they sell.
Google has some customer support. It's not very good. Google has several billion users and only about 100k employees total. That's somewhere around 1 employee per 30k users.
Customer support quality is a continuum, not a binary thing. The comment you replied to was pointing out that a company that makes a small amount per user cannot afford the same level of customer service as a company that makes a lot per user.
No one in the thread said Google couldn't hire more customer support. They said looking at customer support quality as an "ad-hoc monopoly test" is biased against companies with huge user bases and small margins per user.
If I buy something from my local dollar store, they have a no return policy. The items are typically low quality. But they cost a dollar.
My cell company, on the other hand, charges around $60/month for a phone plan, so they have more customer service representatives.