This sounds like Reflexive Control. They're testing the waters to set the groundwork for him being locked up. He wants it to not shock his supporters back into sanity.
In other words, he thinks he might actually end up in prison.
It's also about making sure you can't sue them, even if they did something wrong, even if they did it on purpose, even if they knew it was wrong when they did it.
Instead you must agree to "binding arbitration", so that if you lose they get to learn what strategy works against customers, and if you win they get to learn what strategy doesn't work against customers (but in any case the details cannot be shared with other customers).
Also, you can never participate in a class action suit, so even if they did do something wrong, on purpose, and you convinced a -judge- arbiter, you just get the $12 judgment, or whatever the value is of your actual damages. The corporation can keep the $12 they stole from each of their millions of other customers, who didn't also start arbitration.
I was going to disagree with you by using AI to generate my response, but the generated response was easily recognizable as non-human. You may be onto something lol
I have had some luck asking it follow-up questions to explain what each line does. LLMs are decent at that and might even discover bugs.
You could also copy the conversation and paste it to another instance. It is much easier to critique than to come up with something, and this holds true for AI as well, so the other instance can give feedback like "I would have suggested x" or "be careful with commands like y"
Not to mention, OP didn't specify where they live. Who knows defamation law for the whole world?