Brussels wants to end subscription traps, hidden fees, and fake low-stock warnings. Consumer groups welcome the Digital Fairness Act, while some MEPs say it should ban addictive design outright. Business, meanwhile, warns of yet another layer of EU rules.
Unveiled on Wednesday, the proposal targets manipulative online practices, known as “dark patterns”, such as fake low-stock warnings, hidden fees, and misleading purchasing options. It also introduces rules on influencer marketing, personalised pricing, addictive design and subscription cancellations. Consumers would also gain more control over features like endless scrolling and autoplay.
Alongside the DFA, the Commission proposed stronger enforcement powers for itself to investigate consumer law breaches and impose fines of up to 6 per cent of global turnover. Unfair online practices cost Europeans €10.3bn a year. The Commission estimates the package could save consumers up to €13.7bn annually.
Parliament divided over new rules
Reactions from MEPs to the Digital Fairness Act reveal disagreement over how far the EU should go in regulating online businesses. Progressive lawmakers want stronger consumer safeguards, while conservatives warn against more regulation.
You might be interested
Socialist MEPs Alex Agius Saliba (S&D/MLT) and Laura Ballarín Cereza (S&D/ESP) called for tougher restrictions on addictive design, influencer marketing and manipulative pricing. “Prohibiting dark patterns, such as subscription traps or long click paths, is a long-standing progressive priority, and we celebrate the Commission’s decision to ban them,” said Mr Agius Saliba.
He was less happy with what the proposal leaves out. “But we deeply regret that addictive design was left off the list of banned unfair commercial practices, especially given the impact that infinite scrolling has on our mental health. We also regret the lack of ambition in holding influencers, and the entities paying them, responsible for problematic marketing practices,” he added.
Looking ahead to negotiations in Parliament, Ms Ballarín promised that “the S&Ds will make sure that fairness and safety, by design and by default, are the rule for every company, whether it runs an app, a social network or an online marketplace”.
Greens and conservatives push back
Green MEP Kim van Sparrentak (Greens/EFA/NLD) was more critical of the Commission’s approach to addictive design, which would allow consumers to switch off certain features instead of disabling them by default. “This is a historic mistake, both for our health and for our democracy,” she said. “The Commission could have stood up for people, but chose to bow for the Tech Bros instead,” she added. Ms van Sparrentak nevertheless welcomed measures addressing influencer marketing, subscription cancellations and AI agents, but criticised the lack of stronger restrictions on dynamic pricing.
This is a historic mistake, both for our health and for our democracy. — Kim van Sparrentak, Greens/EFA MEP
On the conservative side, MEP Aura Salla (EPP/FIN) warned that the proposed regulation risks undermining Europe’s digital competitiveness. “Does Europe really need another digital regulation?” she wrote. Ms Salla argued that the EU should prioritise simplifying and enforcing existing legislation rather than introducing new obligations. “We already have one of the world’s most extensive digital regulatory jungles,” she added. The lawmaker called for “less regulation, more innovation” and warned against further legal uncertainty for businesses.
Consumer groups call for stronger protection
The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) welcomed the initiative as a way to restore consumers’ control online. “Ultimately the Digital Fairness Act is about rebalancing the digital economy, so it becomes fairer for everyone,” said its director general, Agustín Reyna.
“Digital markets have for too long left consumers feeling disempowered and frustrated in a maze of complex cancellation processes for subscriptions they do not want, untransparent ticket pricing, or ‘low stock’ warnings that pressure them,” Mr Reyna added. BEUC also stressed the importance of regulating influencer marketing: “If someone is promoting products on social media, it should be clearly stated.”
However, digital-rights campaigners believe the proposal still leaves too much responsibility with consumers. Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal, a policy adviser at European Digital Rights, welcomed the initiative. Yet, like Ms van Sparrentak, she questioned why consumers would have to actively disable addictive features rather than getting safer settings by default. She also warned that protections depending on users’ ages could lead to more age verification.
Industry warns of overlapping rules
Industry groups worry that the Digital Fairness Act could add costs and compliance complexity. Its obligations would overlap with those under the Digital Services Act, the General Data Protection Regulation, and existing consumer protection legislation.
BusinessEurope, which represents European employers, warned that the proposal risks undermining legal certainty and contradicting the Commission’s simplification agenda. “New obligations must be based on concrete evidence and be proportionate,” said its director general, Markus Beyrer.
The association also raised concerns about changes to the burden of proof and the Commission’s proposed enforcement powers. While supporting stronger cross-border enforcement, it called for clear accountability mechanisms and procedural safeguards.
Tech sector fears enforcement maze
Similarly, the Computer & Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe) warned that the DFA duplicates existing legislation, particularly on dark patterns, addictive design, and personalised advertising. “The Digital Fairness Act creates an enforcement maze. Having multiple national and EU authorities oversee very similar practices under different EU laws is a recipe for inconsistent enforcement and unnecessary compliance costs,” said CCIA Europe’s policy manager Albane Vannier.
The Digital Fairness Act creates an enforcement maze. — Albane Vannier, policy manager at CCIA Europe
The Information Technology Industry Council (ITI) also urged lawmakers to prioritise the enforcement of existing consumer protections instead of adding new requirements. “The Digital Fairness Act should build on existing protections and address gaps where they are demonstrated, not adding complexity that brings little benefit to consumers,” said ITI’s Europe director general, Guido Lobrano.
On subscriptions, ITI warned that requiring renewed consent before free trials become paid services could interrupt services users had already knowingly agreed to. The proposal now goes to the European Parliament and the Council, which will negotiate the final text.
