Developments and insights – European Commission

On 3 October 2024, the European Commission published its fitness check of EU consumer law on digital fairness, supported by an external study, examining whether the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD), the Consumer Rights Directive (CRD) and the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) continue to provide a sufficient level of consumer protection in today's digital environment. The assessment covers the period 2017 to 2023.

The fitness check concluded that the core EU consumer acquis remains relevant and necessary, but only partly effective in the digital environment. It identified difficulties in enforcement, risks of regulatory fragmentation and a range of problematic practices that may require further action, including dark patterns, addictive design, unfair personalisation, undisclosed influencer marketing, difficulties with contract cancellation, unfair contract terms, and problems with several emerging practices such as automated contracting.¹

To address these issues, the Commission announced in its 2026 work programme a proposal for a digital fairness act (DFA), expected in the fourth quarter of 2026, accompanied by an impact assessment. In her September 2026 State of the Union speech, the Commission President, Ursula von der Leyen, confirmed the DFA and announced it for autumn (current information has it scheduled for mid-November).The legal basis for the proposal is expected to be Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), i.e. the legal basis for harmonisation of the internal market. The Commission (Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers, DG JUST) held a call for evidence and a public consultation between July and October 2025, which showed differing views on the need for additional EU rules. While consumer protection organisations called for tighter rules, business representatives favoured better enforcement of existing legislation.

The Commission also sought specific input from children, e.g. though a March-April 2026 online survey and a special expert panel on child safety online, which published its recommendations in July 2026. The panel proposed, among other things, restricting access to social media and other digital services for children under 13, followed by progressively more independent access to age-appropriate and safe services. It called for introducing effective and proportionate age assurance, and placing responsibility on service providers to demonstrate that their products and services are safe for children.

The regulatory context has recently evolved, with the Commission proposal for an EU kids act published in September 2026. The proposal includes many safeguards for minors, including graduated access to social media and video-sharing platforms, and safeguards against addictive design. The Commission is also working on other initiatives in this area, namely a revision of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD) and guidelines on the protection of minors under the Digital Services Act (DSA). Against this backdrop, the DFA would address wider digital fairness concerns.

The Commission has placed the DFA within its broader simplification and enforcement agenda. The 2030 consumer agenda presents the DFA as complementing better enforcement. Commissioner Michael McGrath has said that the DFA will avoid duplication with the EU's digital regulations. The DFA could in particular complement the DSA by addressing consumer protection gaps that fall outside its scope, and clarify how the two laws interact in areas such as dark patterns, recommender systems² and online interface design. The Commission is also reviewing the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation, with a proposal expected in the fourth quarter of 2026. That revision might look at strengthening the Commission's role in enforcing EU consumer law. Ensuring regulatory coherence between all these instruments is challenging, not least because the DFA is being developed alongside other legislative initiatives whose final scope and content will also evolve during the legislative process.

Why is the initiative important?

The fitness check concluded that EU consumer law is only partially effective in the digital environment. Although it provides a necessary safety net, there is considerable room for improvement in compliance, legal certainty and enforcement. This is increasingly critical as consumers purchase more products and services online. The fitness check estimated consumer harm from problematic digital commercial practices at €7.9 billion per year,³ describing this as 'a conservative estimate'.

The DFA is essential to addressing various power imbalances between consumers and traders. Technologies and data-driven business models can be used to influence consumer choices and exploit vulnerabilities, leading consumers to pay too much or buy harmful products. Consumers may have limited understanding of data collection and algorithmic processes, limited bargaining power, and difficulties navigating the information overload. Questions also exist over whether consumers can meet the burden of proving violations of consumer law in the complex digital environment.

Existing legal concepts may insufficiently reflect consumer vulnerability online. The fitness check questions whether the UCPD concepts of the average and vulnerable consumer remain adequate. The concept of the vulnerable consumer under the UCPD may not cover temporary vulnerabilities due to contextual or psychological factors. Several stakeholders believe that there has also been insufficient focus on the vulnerabilities of minors.

Effective enforcement is another challenge. Coordinated enforcement through the CPC network can be slow and cumbersome. National authorities differ in their resources, powers and access to effective tools, and sanctions vary across Member States. Enforcing EU consumer rules against non-EU traders not having any establishment or assets in the EU is particularly difficult, among other things, because of limited cooperation with third countries. Academics have therefore argued that the DFA would provide an opportunity to enhance coordination between EU and national authorities, as well as to introduce selective centralised enforcement.

Member State positions and interested parties' opinions

Member States generally support stronger consumer protection in the digital environment, particularly for vulnerable consumers; at the same time, they warn against duplication and incoherence. In the D9+ ministerial declaration of June 2026, 14 ministers called for 'an evidence-based and targeted approach', focusing on genuine regulatory gaps, without duplicating existing rules.⁶

Similarly, in its conclusions on the 2030 consumer agenda, the Council welcomed the planned initiative, yet underlined that it should be 'in synergy' with the existing legal framework, including EU digital legislation. Furthermore, the Council called for particular attention to be paid to the protection of minors, while avoiding regulatory overlaps.

Interested parties' views diverge on whether the identified problems require better enforcement or new binding rules. In a joint industry statement of March 2026, numerous industry associations urged the Commission 'to pause and reset the DFA's trajectory', arguing that effective and more consistent enforcement of existing EU legislation should take priority over new requirements. They recalled that the Commission has committed to simplification and competitiveness. EuroISPA – the association of internet service providers – has also called for clearer guidance for businesses.

Consumer and civil-society organisations, by contrast, argue that enforcement alone is not enough. In a joint call of March 2026, they asked for new binding rules. BEUC and eDRI, for example, support updating concepts such as 'average consumer', disabling addictive design by default, and prohibiting dark patterns and personalisation that exploits vulnerabilities. BEUC also advocates clearer labelling requirements on influencer marketing, and greater transparency around dynamic pricing. Euroconsumers has called for a ban on dynamic pricing in non-competitive markets, such as live entertainment events.

These differences feed into the debate over the form of the DFA. The Commission 2026 work programme identifies the DFA as a legislative initiative. Although commentators have said that the DFA could be a regulation, directive or part of an omnibus legislative package, it is not yet known which form it will take. The choice will affect both the degree of harmonisation across Member States and the level of ambition.

The choice of form is also linked to a broader debate⁷ on the regulatory approach. EU consumer law has traditionally relied on broadly formulated principles that can be applied to evolving market practices. However, more recently, it has moved towards more specific provisions targeting particular situations. If this trend continues, a regulation with more tightly drawn dispositions might be proposed. However, this would depart from the traditional design of the EU consumer acquis, and could complicate integration with the existing legal framework.

European Parliament views

In its May 2025 resolution on challenges and commercial practices in the internal market, Parliament welcomed the fitness check, and called for the DFA to address issues such as digital addiction, online gambling, protection of minors online, targeted advertising, influencers and dark patterns. It stressed that the DFA should be 'consistent' with the existing legal framework, 'close legal loopholes', and be effectively enforced. The need for coherence was reiterated in Parliament's July 2025 resolution on product safety and regulatory compliance in e-commerce and non-EU imports, as well as in a September 2025 resolution on the implementation and streamlining of EU internal market rules. The latter called for EU consumer protection law to 'remain mainly principle-based', but also advocated targeted rules 'when necessary' to ensure legal certainty and avoid 'excessive or redundant' information obligations.

In December 2023, Parliament adopted a dedicated resolution on addictive design, in which it called for a review of core concepts such as 'consumer', 'vulnerable consumer' and 'trader', and urged the Commission to foster ethical design of online services by default. It also suggested introducing a digital 'right not to be disturbed'.

In its November 2025 resolution on the protection of minors online, Parliament called for ambitious measures in the DFA, addressing targeted advertising, influencer marketing, addictive design, loot boxes, in-app currencies in video games, and dark patterns, while ensuring consistency with existing legislation and avoiding unnecessary regulatory burdens. In its September 2026 resolution on the impact of social media and the online environment on young people, Parliament also called for an EU code of conduct for influencers.

In its latest annual competition-policy resolution of July 2026, Parliament called on the Commission and the Member States 'to consider all regulatory options, including prohibiting dynamic pricing at live sports and cultural events' in the DFA. This is a development of its May 2025 resolution mentioned above, which had called for transparency around dynamic pricing.