The European Commission proposed a Digital Fairness Act on Nov. 11, a sweeping rewrite of the EU's consumer protection rules that would ban manipulative interface design, hidden fees, addictive features, and subscription traps, and back the rules with fines of up to 6% of a company's worldwide annual turnover. The proposal, presented alongside a revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation, is the largest overhaul of EU consumer law in a generation. It now goes to the European Parliament and the Council, where it will be negotiated, amended, and almost certainly lobbied against.
The Commission estimates the changes could save EU consumers up to €13.7 billion a year. It frames the package as a response to a simple problem: the rules that protect shoppers in physical stores have not kept up with the way people shop online, where prices can change by the second, interfaces are designed to keep people scrolling, and canceling a subscription can take more steps than starting one. The proposal tries to write a single standard for those practices across the 27 member states.
The Commission's Q&A describes the current harms as a patchwork of national rules and enforcement gaps. The Digital Fairness Fitness Check, completed in 2024, found that existing consumer law was not designed for digital markets and that national authorities struggled to act against platforms operating across borders. The proposal is the Commission's answer: one rulebook, one enforcer, and a penalty large enough to matter.
What the proposal does
The Digital Fairness Act targets dark patterns, the design tricks that push people toward choices they would not otherwise make. The Commission's examples include fake claims that a product is almost sold out, prompts that shame users into staying, and pre-ticked boxes that sign people up for things they did not ask for. The proposal would ban those practices outright rather than requiring regulators to prove them unfair case by case. It would also replace the current Unfair Commercial Practices Directive with a directly applicable regulation, which means the same rules would apply in every member state without separate national transposition.
Pricing is the second target. Companies would have to show the full price upfront, including fees and taxes, which effectively bans drip pricing. Purchases made with virtual in-app currencies would have to display the real-world value of those currencies. When dynamic pricing is used for cultural and sports events, companies would have to show the current price in real time and the highest possible price, including in virtual queues. The goal is to make sure the number a consumer sees is the number they will pay.
The third target is addictive design. Consumers would have the right to turn off features that encourage excessive or compulsive use, such as persistent prompts. The proposal restricts gambling-like features for minors, including loot boxes, pay-to-win mechanics, and pay-to-progress mechanics. It requires influencers to disclose commercial content and prevents them from exploiting the trust of minors in their audience. It also restricts personalized ads and prices that target minors or take advantage of sensitive data.
Subscriptions and AI agents
The subscription rules are among the most concrete. Companies would have to make cancellation as easy as signing up, remind consumers before a free trial turns into a paid subscription, and stop automatic renewals without consent. Consumers would have the right to communicate with a human customer service agent rather than an automated system. The proposal also addresses a newer problem: when a consumer uses an AI agent to buy products on their behalf, the consumer needs clear rights and a clear chain of responsibility if something goes wrong.
The AI-agent provision is a sign of where the Commission thinks the market is heading. Shopping is increasingly mediated by software that compares prices, fills carts, and completes purchases. The proposal does not ban those agents. It tries to make sure the consumer protections that apply to a person clicking "buy" also apply when a program clicks for them. That is a harder problem than it sounds, because the agent may act on instructions the consumer did not fully understand, and the merchant may not know whether it is dealing with a person or a bot.
The package also includes a simplification directive with targeted amendments to the Consumer Rights Directive. It would simplify pre-contractual information requirements for repeat in-app purchases and clarify how consumers can cancel digital media subscriptions within the withdrawal period. The Commission frames those changes as reducing compliance costs for businesses while keeping the protections intact.
The enforcement shift
The second proposal may matter more than the first. The revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation would give the Commission direct powers to investigate large-scale cross-border cases that affect consumers in multiple member states. Today, the Commission coordinates national authorities but cannot bring enforcement actions itself. The revision would let it investigate and fine companies directly, with penalties of up to 6% of worldwide annual turnover.
That is a significant transfer of power from national capitals to Brussels. It would also speed up cases. The proposal sets timelines for key steps in cross-border investigations and improves coordination when fines are collected in different jurisdictions. Non-EU companies would have to appoint a legal representative in the EU to cooperate with national authorities and the Commission, which makes it harder for a foreign platform to ignore a request.
The 6% figure is designed to deter. It is in the same range as the fines available under the Digital Markets Act and the Digital Services Act, the EU's other recent attempts to regulate large platforms. The Commission says the current system is too slow and too fragmented for markets that move at internet speed. National authorities have carried out more than 30 coordinated enforcement actions since the network started in 2020, but the Commission argues that the biggest cross-border cases need a central enforcer.
The politics
The proposal is already drawing opposition. Video game industry groups have called it unworkable, unjustified, and disproportionate, arguing that the restrictions on loot boxes and in-game spending would harm a legal market and drive players elsewhere. Consumer groups have welcomed the proposal but said its value depends on enforcement and on whether the final text survives lobbying in the Parliament and Council.
The gaming provisions are likely to be the flashpoint. Loot boxes are a major revenue source for some publishers, and the industry has argued that existing consumer protection rules already cover them. The Commission's proposal would go further by restricting gambling-like mechanics for minors and requiring parental consent for some in-game purchases. The industry's lobbying will focus on the definition of a loot box, the age threshold, and whether the rules apply to games sold outside the EU but played by EU residents.
The timing is notable. The EU has spent the past several years building a digital rulebook that includes the Digital Markets Act, the Digital Services Act, and the AI Act. The Digital Fairness Act fills a gap in that architecture: it focuses on consumer transactions rather than competition, content moderation, or AI risk. It also gives the Commission a direct enforcement tool that the earlier rules largely left to national regulators.
For U.S. technology companies, the proposal adds another layer of compliance. The dark-pattern rules would apply to app stores, social platforms, e-commerce sites, and game publishers. The subscription rules would affect any company selling digital services in the EU. The 6% fine and the legal-representative requirement would make the EU a more difficult market to treat as an afterthought. The Commission has shown that it is willing to use its existing powers against large platforms, and this proposal would give it more.
What to watch
The negotiation in the Parliament and Council is the first thing to watch. The final text could narrow the dark-pattern definitions, delay the subscription rules, or weaken the enforcement provisions. Industry lobbying will focus on the loot-box restrictions, the personalized-ad limits, and the 6% fine. Consumer groups will push to keep the direct enforcement powers intact.
The second is the timeline. The Commission has not set a date for the rules to take effect, and the ordinary legislative procedure can take a year or more. The proposal could be paired with the next Commission mandate or folded into a broader digital package. The third is enforcement. Even a strong law depends on the Commission's willingness to investigate and fine companies, and on the courts' willingness to uphold the penalties.
The bigger question is whether the EU can export its approach. The Digital Fairness Act would apply to any company selling to EU consumers, including U.S. platforms. If it works, it could become a model for other jurisdictions, the way the GDPR became a global template for privacy law. If it stalls or is watered down, it will be another example of the gap between Brussels' ambition and its enforcement capacity.
The GDPR precedent cuts both ways. It changed how companies handle data worldwide, but enforcement has been uneven and slow. The Digital Fairness Act tries to fix that problem by giving the Commission direct enforcement power from the start. Whether that works will depend on resources, political will, and the courts. The proposal is a framework, not a finished regime, and its practical effect will be decided in the years after it passes.
The Commission's message is that convenience is not an excuse for manipulation. "Convenience must never come at the expense of fairness," Commissioner Michael McGrath said. The proposal is an attempt to make that principle enforceable. The Parliament and Council will decide how much of it survives.
Primary sources
- The European Commission's Nov. 11 press release for the Digital Fairness Act, the Consumer Protection Cooperation revision, the specific prohibitions, the 6% fine, and Commissioner McGrath's statement.
- The Commission's Q&A document for the proposal's scope and the estimated consumer savings.
- Industry and consumer group reactions for the opposition and support described above.