Page Contents
Key contacts
Related areas
The European Commission has unveiled its long-awaited Consumer Package, introducing a proposed Digital Fairness Act (DFA) alongside reforms to the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation. Together, the package seeks to modernise existing consumer law to address concerns relating to manipulative interface design, influencer marketing, personalised advertising and features designed to maximise consumer spending and engagement.
From directive to regulation
The DFA proposal has two elements:
Replacement of the UCPD: At present, the rules governing unfair, misleading and prohibited commercial practices are set out in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), which is implemented through national legislation by each Member State. The DFA would replace this framework with a directly applicable EU regulation, establishing a single, harmonised set of rules across all Member States. This includes, for example, the new rules on environmental claims which were introduced by the Green Transition Directive. The aim is to promote greater legal certainty for businesses operating across the EU, reduce regulatory fragmentation and ensure a more consistent level of consumer protection throughout the EU.
Introduction of new provisions on ‘digital fairness’: The proposal goes beyond this structural reform and introduces a range of substantive measures aimed at addressing practices that the European Commission considers to be inadequately addressed under the current consumer protection framework. If adopted, these new elements of the package would have important implications for all online businesses, including digital services providers, online platforms and marketplaces, e-commerce businesses, app developers, advertisers and brands operating across the EU.
New provisions on digital fairness
We have set out an overview of the proposed new digital fairness provisions below.
Key area |
Summary |
|---|---|
Dark patterns |
The proposal would prohibit businesses from designing websites, apps and other digital interfaces in a way that deceives, manipulates or materially influences consumer decision-making. It introduces a list of prohibited ‘dark patterns’ that will automatically be considered unfair practices, while also giving the European Commission the power to expand this list over time to address emerging technologies and evolving market practices. Examples include:
This proposal extends a prohibition on dark patterns contained in the DSA. |
Influencer marketing |
Influencer marketing would be subject to enhanced transparency requirements. Commercial relationships between brands and influencers would need to be clearly disclosed, and additional safeguards would apply where content may be viewed by minors. The proposal would also prohibit influencer marketing of products that are unsafe or otherwise restricted from advertising, while placing responsibility on brands and other parties in the marketing chain to ensure compliance. |
Restrictions on personalised advertising and pricing |
The proposal seeks to curb certain forms of personalisation that may exploit vulnerable consumers. It would prohibit targeted advertising based on profiling where directed at minors or where the use of sensitive personal data could cause harm. Businesses would also be restricted from using personalised pricing practices based on profiling where these could disadvantage minors or other vulnerable consumers. |
Digital gaming and spending-maximisation practices |
The proposal introduces new requirements aimed at increasing transparency and reducing potentially harmful monetisation practices in digital services and online games. These include transparency requirements where prices are displayed in virtual currencies, restrictions on variable reward mechanisms such as "loot boxes", and a prohibition on certain pay-to-win or pay-to-progress features where minors are involved. |
Addictive digital features |
Providers of digital services would be required to allow consumers to disable certain features that are designed, or can reasonably be expected, to encourage compulsive or excessive use. The European Commission would also be empowered to update the list of features subject to these requirements as digital products and user engagement techniques evolve. |
Dynamic ticket pricing and virtual queues |
The proposal introduces new transparency obligations for online ticket sales. Where ticket prices can increase through dynamic pricing mechanisms or algorithmic processes, businesses would be required to provide consumers with clearer information about pricing. Additional transparency requirements would also apply where virtual queue systems are used during the purchasing process. |
Subscription contracts and consumer rights |
A significant portion of the proposal focuses on addressing perceived consumer risk in subscription and recurring-payment models. Businesses would be required to provide reminders before free trials convert into paid subscriptions and before contracts automatically renew. Consumers would also benefit from simpler cancellation processes, including online termination tools, and greater access to human customer support where automated systems are used. |
Automated contracting and AI-driven consumer interactions |
With the rise of AI agents in e-commerce, the proposal sets out new obligations for businesses that offer consumers “automated systems” capable of entering into and performing contracts on their behalf. Businesses would have to build clear, user-friendly controls that let consumers state their preferences and adjust how the system operates at any time. On first use of an automated system, businesses would need to ask consumers about the level of autonomy they wish to give it, including whether they want to confirm all contracts the automated system proposes, confirm certain types of contracts according to criteria such as price or time, or allow transactions without individual confirmation. Businesses would also need to ensure that automated systems disclose payments received for proposing a contract and relevant conflicts of interest. |
Interplay with other regimes
All of these changes had been widely anticipated and one of the key questions for businesses is how the DFA interacts with other EU regulatory regimes, something we considered in our previous article Digital Fairness Act: A necessary safeguard or unnecessary duplication? The proposal offers some answers to this question. It confirms that the regulation will be without prejudice to contract law and EU and national rules relating to health and safety aspects of products.
It also provides that the regulation is “without prejudice to the rules laid down by other Union legal acts regulating specific aspects of unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices”, in particular GDPR, DMA, DSA, the AI Act, AVMSD and the proposed EU Kids Act. The DFA may serve to provide entities regulated under these regimes with more concrete examples of conduct which will infringe broadly drafted, principles-based provisions. For instance, it is noteworthy that unlike under Article 25 of the DSA (which regulates dark patterns on online platforms), the DFA proposes to annex a specific list of dark patterns, (which the EU Commission can amend) to give further clarity to traders as to the types of conduct which is prohibited.
However, beyond that, merely stating that the new regulation is “without prejudice” to those other rules is not likely in and of itself to resolve more difficult questions where one issue or practice might be regulated differently under these varying regimes (with their associated varying enforcement frameworks and consequences). This interplay will likely be scrutinised during the legislative process.
Enforcement and reform of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation
In general, enforcement of the DFA will be by national regulators, as is the case currently. In Ireland, the CCPC is responsible for enforcement of the UCPD and so will likely remain the primary enforcement body. This means that breaches of the DFA may be subject to the new administrative sanctions powers which are anticipated to be introduced over the next year (you can read more about this in our previous article Consumer law consultation process: Could new direct fining powers for the CCPC be imminent?). However, a key feature of the proposal is the introduction of stronger enforcement powers for the European Commission in cases involving “widespread infringements” that have a significant impact on consumers across the EU. This will apply where that impact is in at least two-thirds of EU Member States, representing at least two-thirds of the EU population - so for very significant traders only. In such cases, the European Commission would be empowered to investigate potential breaches and impose fines of up to 6% of a company's worldwide annual turnover.
This proposed enforcement structure is complemented by proposed reforms to the CPC Regulation as part of the Commission’s broader "One Europe, One Market" agenda. These reforms are intended to strengthen the enforcement of EU consumer protection laws by enhancing cooperation between national consumer protection authorities and improving the coordination of cross-border investigations and enforcement actions.
The proposed CPC Regulation reforms also seek to improve the effectiveness of enforcement against businesses established outside the EU by requiring certain non-EU traders operating within the EU market to appoint a legal representative in the EU. This is intended to facilitate regulatory oversight and ensure that consumer protection obligations can be enforced more effectively across the Single Market.
Key takeaways for businesses
While the proposal remains subject to change as it progresses through the legislative process, it provides a clear indication of the European Commission's policy direction. Businesses may wish to begin considering how the proposed measures could affect them, including:
Digital design: whether their interfaces, systems and customer experiences (including the customer’s journey) could be characterised as negatively impacting the consumer’s decision-making ability;
Marketing: how advertising, influencer activity and personalisation are managed;
Engagement features: how in-app currencies, rewards and similar tools are used;
Automated systems: the level of transparency and control consumers have over AI agents;
Subscriptions: how renewals, free trials and cancellations are handled; and
Governance: how consumer protection is built into existing systems and processes.
We will continue to monitor the proposal’s progress through the European Parliament and Council of the European Union and will report on any relevant developments.
If you have any queries about how the upcoming DFA might affect your business, please contact Mark Ellis, Partner (Technology), Stephen King, Partner (Technology), Denise Daly Byrne, Partner (Consumer and Advertising), Sinéad Hayes, Senior Practice Development Consultant (Litigation) or Shannon Gawley, Practice Development Lawyer, (Technology).
Date published: 13 November 2026
