Joint Call for an Ambitious Digital Fairness Act

One notable stakeholder move last week was the joint call published on 13 March, urging the Commission to come forward with an ambitious Digital Fairness Act. The significance is less in any single ask than in the breadth of the coalition behind it. The letter brings together a large cross-sector group of consumer organisations, civil society actors, digital rights groups and academics, all making the case that the DFA should be a meaningful update of horizontal EU consumer law for the digital environment rather than a narrow enforcement adjustment.

Call for Ambitious DFA

488KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

They argue that the DFA should close legal gaps left by the current framework, while also presenting stronger consumer protection as compatible with legal certainty, fair competition and competitiveness. The text also pushes back against the idea that simplification should mean lowering ambition.

Industry Joint Call to Pause and Reset the DFA

A second joint call has just landed, this time from the business side. In a letter dated 16 March, 34 European and international business associations urged Henna Virkkunen and Michael McGrath to “pause and reset” the DFA’s trajectory. The letter, initiated by the European Tech Alliance, argues that the DFA risks adding new layers of regulation in areas already covered by EU law, with possible overlap, legal uncertainty and higher compliance costs.

Call for DFA Pause and Reset

2.08MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Their preferred direction is clear: focus first on stronger and more consistent enforcement of the existing rulebook, and on greater clarity across the wider digital acquis, especially the interaction between consumer law, data protection, AI and digital services rules.

If the public consultation hadn’t already given us a clear snapshot, taken together, the two joint calls now give the Commission an even clearer idea of the split in stakeholder mood: one coalition asking for a more ambitious horizontal update, the other urging a narrower approach built around enforcement, coherence and simplification.

Panel Discussion with Commission and Major Stakeholders

At CERRE’s Digital Platforms Summit, the panel on “Towards a Consumer Law Coherent and Fit for the Digital Age” offered a useful preview of the debates now crystallising around the Digital Fairness Act, and a clearer indication of what the Commission’s mindset is. This Panel followed the presentation of CERRE’s report on the DFA by Christoph Busch, Amelia Fletcher and Michèle Ledger.

Commission: Hard Bans and Shifting to Regulations

Martins Prieditis (deputy head of unit at DG JUST) said the DFA is being built to fill identified gaps in consumer law through a more design-focused approach, with rules that make rights easier to exercise in practice rather than adding more disclosure obligations. More importantly, he suggested the Commission does not think better enforcement alone can fix the current framework, especially when many traders may be using questionable practices that could amount to dark patterns. In that context, he said the Commission is considering more concrete rules and may even introduce specific prohibitions on certain dark patterns or interface design features. That is one of the clearest signs yet that the DFA may contain hard bans, not just broad fairness principles.

He also said that the CPC review is intended to give the Commission direct enforcement powers in major cross-border cases, which would likely require shifting some existing consumer law rules from directives into regulations.

Prieditis also flagged a key internal milestone: DG JUST is due before the Commission’s Regulatory Scrutiny Board on 1 July, meaning the DFA impact assessment will need to be largely locked down by then, with any negative opinion risking delay.

Cancelling Subscriptions and Burden of Proof

One exchange was about how prescriptive the DFA should be. BEUC’s Urs Busck backed an EU-wide cancellation button for subscriptions and pointed to Fitness Check findings that 96% of consumers find it difficult to cancel subscriptions. But his broader message was that the debate cannot stop there. He said dark patterns, video games, influencer marketing and especially burden of proof are too important to leave out. On burden of proof, his point was direct: if consumers still face excessive difficulties proving harm in technically complex cases, the DFA will make “no difference”.

Personalisation: Opt-in vs Opt-out

An important point of discussion was whether the DFA should focus only on financial harm or also tackle harms linked to time and attention. Dries Cuijpers from the Dutch ACM argued strongly that EU consumer law needs to start addressing non-economic harms. His point was that business models increasingly monetise not just money, but also time and attention, and that consumer law still does not properly deal with that. He also pushed for opt-in rather than opt-out where consumers are given a choice over personalisation, and argued that vulnerabilities should never be abused, whether through advertising, pricing or UX design.

Avoid duplicating the DSA

Industry speakers largely converged on coherence and level playing field. Snapchat and TikTok both argued that the DFA should avoid duplicating the DSA and should only step in where there are genuine gaps. TikTok’s Eugene McQuaid also backed the idea that if a company is already complying with sector-specific rules, that compliance should count under the DFA where relevant.

Gaming: loot boxes

Gaming was one of the more contested themes. BEUC highlighted that the CERRE report failed to properly cover consumer issues in video games, while Tencent pushed back against the idea of broad restrictions on models like loot boxes, arguing that they are non-mandatory and tied to the economics of free-to-play games. But even there, the wider point was really about the DFA’s method: whether it should target specific sectors and features, or stay at the level of broader principles.

Fireside Chat with Commission

CERRE’s Digital Platforms Summit also featured a fireside chat with Isabelle Pérignon (director for consumers at DG JUST), who gave a fairly direct account of where the Commission is heading on the Digital Fairness Act. The fireside chat was moderated by Anupriya Datta, Tech Reporter at Euractiv, who asked particularly clear and pertinent questions.

Leaning towards a Regulation?

Asked whether the DFA could turn consumer protection rules into regulations, and whether the DFA itself could be a regulation rather than a directive, Pérignon said the objective is to be “efficient”.

She said the direction the Commission wants to go in is to have stronger rules and, “if possible indeed a regulation”, which could also serve as the basis for giving the Commission additional enforcement powers, especially in the context of Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation reform.

Commission wants much stronger enforcement

On enforcement, Pérignon said that “all options are on the table indeed”. She described the current system as one the Commission wants to move beyond. The direction she set out was a system that is: “very much stronger”, based on deadlines, equipped with “stronger teeth”, backed by fines with a really higher level, able to use interim measures, and able to take action such as “delisting some platforms” when they do not respect the rules on unfair commercial practices.

Social media bans for children in DFA?

When pressed on whether the DFA could be the right vehicle for social media bans for children, she said that is something her team is analysing. Looking at the issue through the angle of “the teenager, the kid, as a consumer” would place it within the scope of the DFA, but “where and how” to address it remains open, and she repeated that all options are on the table.

Priorities

Asked what she would put in the DFA if it came out tomorrow, Pérignon gave three priorities:

1. Simplification of rules. She called this a “unique opportunity” to review the existing framework, see what can be abrogated, improved or clarified, and use the file to bring more harmonisation.

2. A strong protection of minors angle. She sees the need to tackle addictions that start at a young age.

3. Modernise the existing consumer framework to address new phenomena that were not foreseen a few years ago. The example she gave was “agentic commerce and AI agents” as Christoph Busch suggests.

Special Panel on Child Safety Online

On 5 March, Ursula von der Leyen hosted the first meeting of the special panel on child safety online, with a mandate to deliver expert recommendations and to look at whether the EU should move towards harmonised age restrictions for access to social media. The idea is to build on the existing toolbox (DSA and its minors guidance, BIK+, cyberbullying work, age verification pilots) while taking stock of where policymakers think gaps remain. The panel is co-chaired by Maria Melchior, and Jörg M. Fegert.

The first meeting already put issues like age-appropriate safety by design, addictive features, recommender dynamics, and digital literacy on the table. The panel is expected to report by summer 2026, so its framing is likely to become a reference point for on addictive design and safeguards for minors, including what should be handled via enforcement versus new horizontal rules. If the timeline for the report is respected, it will be published right before the Commission officially tables the Digital Fairness Act. We can therefore expect that the report will influence the Commission on the DFA.

TikTok’s Addictive Design in Breach of DSA

The Commission added a useful data point to the "addictive design" debate on 6 February, sending TikTok preliminary findings that its core engagement features may breach the DSA’s systemic risk obligations. The Commission points to infinite scroll, autoplay, push notifications and TikTok’s highly personalised recommender system, and argues that TikTok’s risk assessment and mitigation measures did not adequately address impacts on users’ wellbeing, including minors and vulnerable adults. TikTok can now access the case file and reply, the European Board for Digital Services will be consulted, and any final non-compliance decision could carry fines of up to 6% of global turnover.

For Digital Fairness Act watchers, the bigger takeaway is the direction of travel. Even before the DFA proposal lands, the DSA is being used to test what "reasonable, proportionate and effective" mitigation looks like in practice, and that enforcement learning will shape expectations across stakeholders on whatever the DFA ends up adding on addictive design.

Shein’s Addictive Design Gets Investigated

On 17 February, the Commission opened formal proceedings against Shein. The case is framed around three buckets: how the platform limits the sale of illegal products in the EU (including content that could constitute CSAM), the risks linked to potentially addictive engagement mechanics (for example points or rewards), and the transparency of the recommender systems that steer users towards products.

For the Digital Fairness Act debate, the significance is about the precedent the Commission is setting. The Commission is testing its own interpretations of “addictive design” through the DSA’s systemic risk and mitigation duties, and doing so on an e-commerce marketplace, not only on social media. That will inevitably feed into the DFA baseline discussion of what can be enforced today versus what needs new horizontal rules. As always, this is still at the investigation stage, with due process and potential remedies or fines only if a final non-compliance decision is reached.

Corporate Europe Observatory Scrutinises DFA Lobbyists

Corporate Europe Observatory (CEO) dropped a report on 5 February, “Addicted to the algorithm”, framing the Digital Fairness Act’s coming fight around one question: will the EU actually curb addictive social media design, or will the file get neutralised in the name of competitiveness and simplification? It maps the political and lobbying terrain now forming around DG JUST’s work on the DFA.

A few signals in it are hard to ignore for anyone tracking Brussels dynamics: CEO counted at least 96 meetings between Commission top officials and DFA lobbyists since December 2024, with roughly 83% involving industry, and highlights the sector’s record lobbying footprint. It also pulls together the now familiar lines of attack we regularly hear (enforce the DSA, rely on voluntary codes, avoid “new burdens”) and points to the growing role of ecosystem players and proxies, including “consumer” voices like “Consumer Choice Center Europe” and media partnerships like EU Tech Loop, in shaping the narrative before the proposal lands.

Contact

As always, feel free to reach out on LinkedIn or at james@edpi.eu if you have any information you would like to share or any questions. Thanks for reading!

The Commission first presented the results, highlighting that 70% of consultation respondents supported binding EU intervention in areas such as dark patterns, addictive design features, unfair personalisation/influencer marketing, and other problematic digital product tactics. There was similarly “high support” for measures better protecting minors online, echoing the European Parliament’s own calls to fill gaps in these areas.

The Commission are considering measures on drip pricing, misleading dynamic pricing, and opaque price comparisons that can mislead consumers.

Protecting minors was stressed as “a priority for the DFA,” with ideas like switching off addictive design features by default for underage users and extending the DSA’s ban on targeted ads to minors across all online traders.

IMCO MEPs and Commission Q&A

Christel Schaldemose (S&D) pressed the Commission on the timeline, noting that a proposal only by Q4 2026 means new protections might not take effect for years. She urged faster action to “protect kids better,” given broad agreement on many measures. Schaldemose also asked if the DFA will incorporate age verification/age limits, a key recommendation of Parliament’s own report, and whether the Commission is considering stronger liability for platforms or their managers, since current fines can be shrugged off by big online players.

The Commission sympathised but explained that Q4 2026 is already a “super tight” schedule. It confirmed that age verification measures are on the table, the team is assessing the need for legal age limits (potentially using the European digital identity framework) as indicated by the public consultation. The Commission is also examining the idea of new liability provisions to ensure platforms truly comply with child-protection rules, although these complex options must be carefully analysed before inclusion in the DFA.

Kim van Sparrentak (Greens/EFA) argued that policymakers must choose whether to heed consumers and SMEs or cave to Big Tech interests, clearly hoping the DFA will prioritise the former. While supporting special protections for minors, she noted broad public support for bolstering general consumer protections (such as updating the EU’s unfair commercial practices list for the digital age). Kim questioned whether, legally, an “unfair commercial practice” can be prohibited only for minors but allowed for adults, since if something is harmful and unfair, it should be banned for everyone, regardless of age.

The Commission “heard [her] call” and affirmed it is determined to close gaps for all consumers, minors and adults alike, including vulnerable groups like the elderly or persons with disabilities. At the same time, it sees scope to go further in certain areas to better protect children online, and is looking at additional measures under the DFA for those crucial issues, while still maintaining baseline protections for all consumers.

Dóra Dávìd (EPP) cautioned against over-regulation. She noted that many stakeholder views on the DFA diverge, and warned that piling on new rules where existing laws already suffice could hinder innovation and confuse consumers. Dávìd asked what form the DFA will take, whether it will be an “omnibus” set of amendments to existing directives or a standalone act, and whether the Commission is leaning toward a directive or a regulation.

In response, the Commission said the format of the DFA is still under consideration pending impact assessment results. One option is amending existing directives, but if entirely new provisions are needed, the Commission prefers a regulation to ensure uniform rules across the EU.

Pablo Arias Echeverría (EPP) first stressed the need to better protect minors online in a way that avoids market fragmentation from divergent national laws. Second, he highlighted the flood of inexpensive imports from third-country e-commerce platforms (notably China), bringing unsafe products into the EU, asking if the DFA could help curb these unfair practices.

The Commission acknowledged both issues, affirming that a harmonised EU approach is needed to “avoid having 27 different rules” for online consumer protection, and calling the rise of unsafe products via foreign platforms a “huge issue” that the DFA will tackle alongside measures like customs reforms and DSA enforcement.

Laura Ballarín Cereza (S&D) asked how the DFA will ensure a coherent European framework that truly hits the platforms’ problematic business models without overlap or delay. Ballarín also pressed for EU action on influencer marketing (transparency and fair practices across borders) and cautioned against stifling Europe’s booming video game sector while addressing issues like loot boxes.

The Commission agreed on the need to protect minors online and to avoid fragmented rules (for example, on influencer marketing across Member States). It indicated that the DFA will target specific gaps, such as ensuring loot boxes and in-game purchases are transparent and comply with consumer law, but without over-regulating the sector, focusing on closing loopholes rather than imposing overly strict new burdens.

Sandro Gozi (Renew) asked what strategy the Commission will use to align the DFA with existing frameworks so that transparency and fairness requirements are not siloed or contradictory. Gozi further inquired if the Commission plans to add any new transparency rules for online video games, an area of concern for consumer protection.

The Commission assured that it is reviewing “all existing legislation” to ensure the DFA complements the current acquis (including the DSA and upcoming AI rules). It emphasised that the DFA’s mission is to fill remaining gaps, using imaginative solutions to cover unfair practices that slip through today, and to dovetail with parallel efforts (like enforcement actions and a strengthened Consumer Protection Cooperation regulation) so that no loopholes persist, even in sectors like gaming.

Gheorghe Piperea (ECR) raised the issue of “irrational purchases”. Piperea noted that no current EU or national law addresses the fact that dark patterns and manipulative designs can push consumers into irrational, emotionally driven purchases. He urged the Commission to consider tackling these psychological manipulations in the DFA.

The Commission acknowledged the concern, stating that this phenomenon is exactly why the Commission is conducting an evidence-based review of existing laws and evaluating what new rules might be needed in the DFA to curb such exploitative practices.

Leïla Chaibi (The Left) pressed the Commission on its stance amid opposing pressures. On one side, consumers (and Parliament) clearly want stronger binding rules, while on the other, “Big Tech” prefers a laissez-faire approach and she warned that past consumer-law packages seemed to favour industry interests over the public. Chaibi asked pointedly, “Who is the Commission going to listen to?” in drafting the DFA. She also challenged the Commission with two specifics: first, will it support an outright ban on exploitative practices like loot boxes in online games, which many consider predatory, or yield to the gaming lobby’s preferences? Second, given France’s new law on influencer marketing, will the DFA introduce an EU-wide definition of “influencer” and require uniform transparency (so influencers must clearly declare paid promotions), potentially even banning certain promotions (e.g. for cosmetic surgery or risky financial products) across Europe?

The Commission responded that it “listens to everybody, both sides” and finds it crucial to hear consumers’ voices about the problems they face. As an example, the Commission noted concerns about minors in “free-to-play” games who end up spending money on in-game purchases with insufficient transparency. The Commission indicated it is aware of such issues and is looking at greater transparency requirements and protections in areas like gaming and influencer content, while balancing input from all stakeholders.

Dr. Mark Leiser on Systemic Deception

A critical theoretical contribution to the DFA debate has come from Dr. Mark Leiser, a legal scholar who argues that the Commission must look “beyond the screen”. In an extensive letter to Commissioner Michael McGrath, Leiser posits that the concept of “dark patterns” has reached the limits of its analytical usefulness.

Dr Mark Leiser to Michael McGrath

220KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Leiser argues that dark patterns implicitly locate unfairness at the level of the “interface”, the button, the disclosure, the flow. He suggests that the most consequential forms of manipulation today are “architectural” and “systemic”. This distinction is critical for the DFA’s long-term effectiveness. While interface-level fixes (like mandatory cancellation buttons) improve the consumer experience at the margins, they do not address the “optimisation logic” that produces them.

Leiser warns that if the DFA only catalogues prohibited dark patterns, platforms will “comply at the surface and compete below it,” shifting manipulation more deeply into ranking algorithms and monetisation architectures. He urges the Commission to treat the DFA as an opportunity to regulate the “manufacture of choice” rather than just the “presentation of choice”.

The Live Events Crisis: A Call for Ticketing Reform

A coalition of over 120 artists, managers, and venues has written to Commissioner McGrath to request that the DFA specifically address “fraudulent practices” in ticket resale.

“Open letter from Europe’s live events sector to European Commissioner McGrath” - Face-value European Alliance for Ticketing (FEAT)

The coalition argues that e-commerce platforms continue to facilitate “industrial-scale illicit marketing,” where tickets are sold before they have even gone on official sale. A survey of FEAT (Face-value European Alliance for Ticketing) members found that efforts to report illegal listings frequently go ignored; in one instance, 296 listings covering nearly 1,000 tickets were reported, with only a single response from the platform.

Minor Protection and the Expert Panel on Age Controls

An expert panel on age verification for social media is taking shape to support the DFA’s development. According to a Commission invitation letter reported by MLex, the panel will consist of about 20 specialists (scientists, physicians, academics, and child-safety advocates) assembled to advise on social-media age restrictions. This group, expected to start work in early 2026, will explore how to implement age checks and parental control mechanisms in a privacy-preserving and effective way. Its recommendations could feed into the DFA’s provisions on protecting minors online.

The Commission invited the following experts: Leanda Barrington-Leach, Antonia Torrens, Sonia Livingstone, Servane Mouton, Jutta Croll, Lauren Mason, Leo Pekkala, Kimmo Alho, Christine Bauer, Matthias Brand, Jeff Hancock, Pavel Kordík, James O’Higgins Norman, Brian O’Neil, Maria Soledad Pera, Piotr Toczyski, Patty Valkenburg, Alexandra Weilenmann, Elena Bozzola, Hanne Mari Schiøtz Thorud.

Digital Platforms Summit 2026

At the end of February, a major industry-policy forum will look into upcoming DFA issues. The Digital Platforms Summit 2026 (25 Feb in Brussels, hosted by CERRE) is set to explore how the DMA is reshaping markets and anticipate the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act. The agenda includes high-level panels on consumer protection by design, dark patterns, addictive design & personalisation, and child protection, exactly the topics dominating the DFA debate. Notably, the Commission’s Isabelle Pérignon (DG JUST) will appear in a fireside chat, and former EVP Margrethe Vestager is giving a keynote. Stakeholders can thus get a preview of the DFA’s direction and discuss enforcement challenges ahead of the proposal.

Stay in Touch

As always, feel free to reach out on LinkedIn or at james@edpi.eu if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

Commission Summary Report - Public Consultation On The Digital Fairness Act

2.23MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Although it does not officially represent the Commission’s positions, it might give an early indication of what the Commission may focus on for the Digital Fairness Act.

DFA Stakeholder Surveys Sent by Commission

Two detailed questionnaires circulated by the European Commission to stakeholders (according by MLex) offer a more granular snapshot of the themes being tested for the DFA, and are intended to inform the Commission’s impact assessment work. The questionnaires probe how current EU consumer rules may fall short in digital settings, particularly around manipulative interface practices, “addictive” engagement features, influencer marketing, and personalisation practices, plus explicitly ask stakeholders to provide evidence of harms and practical experience.

MLex notes that some often-associated DFA topics do not appear in the questionnaires, including references to dynamic pricing and the sale of illegal or non-compliant products by Chinese online retailers.

A significant share of the questions concentrates on minors: respondents are asked to describe potential health, psychological, developmental, social and financial risks; to react to options around age-assurance (including verification); and to consider whether an EU-wide “digital age” for independently accessing/consenting to services should be harmonised, alongside potential trade-offs such as privacy impacts, exclusion risks, and compliance burdens.

The questionnaires also look into video-game design choices (including loot boxes, virtual currencies, and “pay-to-win” mechanics), exploring options such as transparency measures, parental tools, and possible restrictions for minors.

More broadly, they test ideas such as expanding prohibited interface practices (with references to alignment with the Digital Services Act), introducing a potential “fairness by design” obligation (including ex ante assessment of interfaces/recommendation systems/algorithms), and strengthening enforcement levers, while also revisiting how concepts like the “average” or “vulnerable” consumer should operate in personalised, attention-scarce environments.

DG JUST seems to have also sent the following survey (below) to stakeholders.

Stakeholder Survey DFA

3.38MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

It does not appear to be one of the two surveys referenced in MLex’s report, but this has not yet been confirmed.

Panel of experts on Protection of Minors Online

In a recent exchange with the press, a spokesperson confirmed that the Commission is still working on the planned panel of experts on the protection of minors online, which President von der Leyen announced in September. Asked whether the panel will indeed be set up by the end of the year (as previously announced), the spokesperson asked for a bit more patience.

BEUC: Influencer Marketing Unboxed

BEUC has published a new report, “Influencer Marketing Unboxed: Exposing how the fast fashion and food sectors hook consumers”. It is based on evidence-gathering by 14 BEUC consumer organisations from 12 countries, which monitored around 650 influencer posts and videos on TikTok, Instagram, YouTube and Snapchat between March and September 2025, with a specific focus on fast fashion and unhealthy food promotion.

BEUC Influencer Marketing Unboxed

5.1MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The report describes widespread hidden advertising and techniques that appeal to emotions to shape consumer preferences, including among younger audiences, and argues that the current EU framework only partially addresses these practices. BEUC links the findings to ongoing policy discussions, explicitly pointing to the EU Digital Fairness Act.

Freshfields Blog

Freshfields’ Technology Quotient blog has published two new pieces relevant to the Digital Fairness Act file:

• Digital Fairness Act Public Consultation Analysis: What Stakeholders were asking for and what it means for the proposed DFA? - 18 Dec 2025

• Digital Fairness Fitness Check and Digital Fairness Act Part 9: CPC Regulation - 16 Dec 2025

Stay in Touch

As always, feel free to reach out on LinkedIn or at james@edpi.eu if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

On 26 November 2025, the European Parliament adopted its own-initiative resolution on the Protection of minors online by 483 votes in favour, 92 against and 86 abstentions. It is a non-legislative text, but its rapporteur, MEP Christel Schaldemose, has expressed her desire for it to guide the Digital Fairness Act.

Paragraph 14 Explicitly calls on the Commission to strengthen the protection of minors online through the upcoming digital fairness act. It states that “persuasive technologies” (targeted advertising, influencer marketing, addictive design, loot boxes, in-app currencies and dark patterns) should be addressed in the digital fairness act.

Parliament calls on the Commission to propose legislation mandating age-appropriate and safety-by-design/default requirements, and explicitly requests that platforms and other traders:

• ban engagement-based recommender algorithms for minors,

• ban the most harmful addictive practices, and

• disable other addictive design features by default for minors.

Parliament urges the Commission to guarantee a high level of protection for minors by prohibiting loot boxes and other randomised paid content (wheels of fortune, prize wheels, card packs) in games likely to be accessed by minors, and by addressing risks linked to in-app currencies, micro-transactions, pay-to-progress and pay-to-win mechanisms where these encourage overspending or gambling-like behaviour or are embedded in core gameplay.

On dark patterns, Parliament “stresses that there is no single comprehensive EU regulation on dark patterns”, recalls that the DSA ban is limited to online platforms and that the UCPD only provides a general prohibition plus a narrow blacklist with no interface-specific entries. It urges the Commission to clarify the interplay between existing instruments and to consider revising Annex I UCPD to blacklist a non-exhaustive list of interface practices (undue prominence, pre-ticked choices, removal of stopping cues, emotional or ambiguous wording, fake scarcity and fake social proof).

Parliament also calls for a harmonised EU “digital age” of 16 as the default threshold for access to social media, video-sharing platforms and AI companions, with access for 13–16-year-olds only where parents or guardians authorise it, and a hard lower limit of 13 for social media. It asks the expert panel announced by President von der Leyen to examine the same 13-year threshold for video-sharing services and AI companions.

The resolution backs the Commission’s DSA Article 28(4) guidelines on minors, calls for accurate and privacy-preserving age-assurance tools (including an EU age-verification app and the European Digital Identity wallet), and calls on the Commission to consider personal liability for senior management in cases of serious and persistent non-compliance with DSA child-protection and age-verification rules.

Below, you can watch the full debate on the Protection of Minors Online which happened in the EP plenary before the final vote.

Consumer Policy Advisory Group Meeting

On 28 November, the Commission’s Consumer Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) met in Brussels with an agenda centred on the new 2030 Consumer Agenda, the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act (DFA) and the planned reform of the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation.

For DFA watchers, the main takeaway was that the Commission gave a sneak preview of the public consultation results and confirmed that the official consultation report will be published just before Christmas (most likely on or before 19 December).

2030 Consumer Agenda

On 19 November 2025 the Commission presented its new 2030 Consumer Agenda and action plan. The Communication confirms that, on top of the DSA/DMA/AI Act, existing horizontal consumer law still leaves gaps for online practices, and therefore the Commission will propose a Digital Fairness Act in Q4 2026.

Other than the 2030 Consumer Agenda reaffirming the Commission’s ambitions for the DFA with a particular focus on young people, no new information was provided on the upcoming law.

Freshfields DFA Articles

In November, Freshfields wrote three useful articles about the Digital Fairness Act:

• Digital Fitness Check and DFA Part 8: Dropshipping, Bots, Ticket Sales: good on how the Fitness Check frames “other problems” (AI chatbots, scalper bots, dynamic ticket pricing) and which of these may realistically end up in the DFA versus mere monitoring or guidance.

• The EU’s proposed DFA: A game developer’s guide to potential implications: sharp, concrete analysis of possible DFA obligations around virtual currencies, loot boxes, engagement-driving mechanics and withdrawal rights for virtual items.

• The EU’s proposed DFA: An e-commerce players’ guide to potential implications: focused on dark patterns, personalised pricing, recommender systems and subscription design, and how the DFA might interact with the existing UCPD/CRD/DSA stack.

All three are written from a litigation/compliance perspective, so they’re useful for stress-testing how far the eventual DFA could go in practice.

Stay in Touch

As always, feel free to reach out on LinkedIn or at james@edpi.eu if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

Organisations that Submitted Feedback on DFA

The Commission’s public consultation on the DFA closed on 24 October. In total it attracted well over 4000 responses, with a heavy share from individual citizens as discussed in last month’s post. Because the “Have Your Say” site does not let you filter by respondent type, it is surprisingly hard to surface positions from companies, trade associations and NGOs amid the citizen submissions, so I’ve compiled a clean index of all non-citizen written feedback (with direct links) in the PDF attached below.

DFA Feedback Index by Orgs

300KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

The Commission states that they will publish a summary report of the public consultation by 19 December 2025, with a full synopsis folded into the impact assessment thereafter.

IMCO Votes on Protection of Minors Online

On October 16, IMCO adopted its Protection of Minors Online own-initiative report, backing an EU-wide 16+ digital age floor (with parental opt-in) and calling for tougher DSA enforcement plus default bans on the most harmful engagement mechanics (addictive design, loot boxes, and profiling-based recommendations to minors).

The text also calls for “persuasive technologies”: dark patterns, influencer marketing, recommender systems, and in-app currencies, to be tackled in the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act, bringing them under consumer-law obligations in addition to the DSA/GDPR.

Results of IMCO Votes (+ in favour | - against | 0 abstention):

It is non-binding, but it nudges the Commission to consider the late-2026 DFA proposal as the vehicle to close these gaps. The European Parliament will vote this text at the 24-27 November plenary session before it becomes the official position of Parliament if adopted.

Compromise Amendments

284KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Parliamentary Hearings

On 4 November 2025, IMCO and PETI will hold a joint public hearing on “Protecting children and adolescents in digital environments,” a check-in on minors’ risk, enforcement gaps and policy fixes.

The following week, IMCO’s 10 November committee meeting features a public hearing on “Building an independent, open and healthy digital environment for European consumers.”

Taken together, these hearings are likely to shape Parliament’s asks ahead of the DFA, especially on minors’ protections, dark-pattern controls, and broader consumer-design rules.

Supercell CEO Makes Waves

Earlier this month, Supercell CEO Ilkka Paananen posted a widely shared letter warning that CPC guidance on in-game “digital coins” and a future Digital Fairness Act could “fundamentally break how games work” in Europe. He argues the CPC approach would effectively treat every token spend as a separate financial transaction, urging the DFA to keep in-game currencies classified as digital content (not “digital representations of value”) and to stick to proportionate, evidence-based rules. In his view, the current direction risks degrading UX, chilling investment, and nudging studios toward ads-led models.

Supercell Letter

151KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Timeline

• 24-27 November 2025: EP plenary sitting for Protection of minors online report

• End of November: CPAG Meeting

• Q4 2025: Adoption of the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• Q4 2026: Commission publishes DFA proposal

Stay in Touch

As always, feel free to reach out on LinkedIn or at james@edpi.eu if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

On September 24^th, the European Parliament Committee on the Internal Market and Consumer Protection (IMCO) discussed amendments and compromises for the “protection of minors online” report. The committee is set to vote on the adoption of the draft report on October 16^th at 9:30am.

The protection of minors online report, if adopted in plenary in November, will the official position of the European Parliament. The rapporteur of the report Christel Schaldemose (S&D), alongside other MEPs and experts believe it may feed into the Digital Fairness Act.

Summary of MEP Interventions on Protection of Minors Online

MEPs took their turn to voice their opinion on the report. Here is a summary of what the rapporteur and shadows stated:

🔴 Christel Schaldemose (S&D) seeks ambitious cross-group compromises. Exploring:

1. prohibiting “gambling-like” features (e.g., loot boxes) and requiring real-currency transparency;

2. mandatory, privacy-preserving age assurance/verification and a possible EU-wide age limit for access to social media;

3. clarifying platform liability via Article 28 guidelines without reopening the DSA.

Signals the report should guide DSA enforcement and inform the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act (DFA).

🔵 Pablo Arias Echeverría (Speaking on behalf of Dóra Dávid) (EPP) supports a harmonised EU approach. Calls for effective, reliable, non-intrusive age checks; under-16 access to social media/video-sharing only with parental consent; no profiling-based content for minors; extend DSA-equivalent protections to video games; restrict gambling-like mechanics and require transparency for in-game currencies; curb “kidfluencing”; strengthen enforcement of DSA/UCPD and focus on gaps.

🟢 Kim van Sparrentak (Greens/EFA) urges bans on addictive design (e.g., endless scroll) and tackling profiling/engagement-driven recommender systems; wants user-controlled feeds. Supports privacy-preserving age checks via the EU wallet (red/green signal), opposes intrusive/guess-based age estimation; seeks safeguards so protection does not expand tracking. Asks Commission which age-assurance methods are safest and whether the wallet can/should be the preferred option.

🔵 Elisabeth Dieringer-Granza (PfE) warns against state surveillance via age verification; demands user-verifiable, data-protection-friendly solutions; prioritises parental responsibility and tools; opposes algorithmic interventions and a general ban on loot boxes; cautions against over-regulation and restrictions on freedom of expression.

🟡 Stéphanie Yon-Courtin (Renew) backs an ambitious position ahead of the DFA. Supports obligatory age verification with strong privacy guarantees, leveraging the EU digital identity wallet and coherent parental-consent rules; targets dark patterns, influencer marketing, and games-of-chance features; stresses EU-level rules to avoid fragmentation and the need for digital-literacy measures.

🔵 Kosma Złotowski (ECR) opposes EU-level norms on screen-time or account-age thresholds; rejects EU identity/content verification online; emphasises parental primacy over top-down obligations; favours fewer prohibitions and more family trust.

🔴 Leila Chaibi (LEFT) was absent and did not designate a replacement.

FreshFields EU Digital Fairness Dashboard

Freshfields has released an invite-only EU Digital Fairness Dashboard that lets you quickly scan key DFA themes and compare how related practices are already treated across the EU consumer/digital-law stack (UCPD, CRD, GDPR, DMA/DSA, Data Act, etc.). It’s designed for fast filtering and side-by-side comparisons, handy for mapping overlaps/gaps and briefing clients or internal stakeholders.

Get Access

Freshfields notes the dashboard was commissioned and funded by Meta but prepared independently in a neutral, informational capacity and does not constitute legal advice.

Foundational Reads for the DFA

I curated the following books because they offer real insight for people engaging with the Digital Fairness Act, whether you’re drafting policy, advising stakeholders, building compliant products, or just trying to understand its contours. The links below are Amazon affiliate links, if you buy through them, I may earn a commission at no extra cost to you.

• Dark Patterns, Deceptive Design, and the Law by Mark Leiser

• Logging Off: The Human Cost of Our Digital World by Adele Zeynep Walton

• Deceptive Patterns Exposing the Tricks Tech Companies Use to Control You by Harry Brignull

Lobby Ledger

Here is a log of all known meetings between interest representatives and EU institutions on the Digital Fairness Act and Protection of Minors Online. Since August 28^th 2025.

Meetings with Commissioner Michael McGrath and Egelyn Braun

• 03/09/2025: Motion Picture Association EMEA (MPA EMEA) | Minutes

• 03/09/2025: European Newspaper Publishers’ Association (ENPA), News Media Europe (NME), European Magazine Media Association (EMMA) | Minutes

• 28/08/2025: Allegro, John Sisk & Son | Minutes

Meetings with MEPs on the DFA

• 25/09/2025: Pan European Game Information (PEGI) | MEP Veronika Cifrová Ostrihoňová

• 10/09/2025: Handelsverband Deutschland e.V. (HDE) | MEP Marion Walsmann

• 09/09/2025: Computer and Communications Industry Association (CCIA Europe) | MEP Aura Salla

• 05/09/2025: Pan European Game Information (PEGI) | MEP Aura Salla

• 03/09/2025: Pan European Game Information (PEGI) | MEP Christel Schaldemose

Meetings with MEPs on the Protection of minors online

• 23/09/2025: World Federation of Advertisers | MEP Kosma Złotowski

• 17/09/2025: European Digital Rights | MEP Leila Chaibi

• 10/09/2025: Youtube | MEP Marco Squarta

• 09/09/2025: Google | MEP Elisabeth Dieringer

• 03/09/2025: DOT Europe | MEP Christel Schaldemose

Meetings with MEP Laura Ballarín Cereza on the Protection of minors online

• 29/09/2025: OpenAI

• 29/09/2025: DOT Europe

• 22/09/2025: Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC)

• 19/09/2025: Regulatory Authority for Audiovisual and Digital Communication (ARCOM)

• 18/09/2025: The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC)

• 18/09/2025: Euroconsumers

• 17/09/2025: TikTok

• 17/09/2025: Youtube

• 16/09/2025: DFA team (DG JUST - European Commission)

• 15/09/2025: KidsUnplugged

• 15/09/2025: Meta

• 12/09/2025: 5Rights Foundation, Eurochild

Meeting with Secretariat-General

• 09/17/2025: Nils Behrndt | European Tech Alliance

DFA Implementation dialogue with Commissioner McGrath

In July, Commissioner Michael McGrath hosted an implementation dialogue on consumer protection in the digital environment. Although this event was hosted a while ago, you may still find the list of attendees of interest:

• Cabinet Mcgrath: Egelyn Braun - Lucie Rousselle

• European Commision: Ana Gallego - Irena Moozova – Isabelle Pérignon – Maria Kanellopoulou – And more

• 5Rights: Manon Baert

• Allegro: Miroslawa Kawala

• Associação Portuguesa para a Defesa do Consumidor (Deco): Paulo Fonseca

• BEUC: Patrycja Gautier

• Bitkom: Susanne Dehmel

• Booking: Carolin Wehrhahn

• BusinessEurope: Maria Therese Lein

• Ceconomy (MediaWorld): Emanuele Cosimelli

• Danish Consumer Council (Forbrugerrådet Tænk): Esben Geist

• DigitalEurope: Cecilia Bonefeld-Dahl

• Direction générale de la concurrence, de la consommation et de la répression des fraudes (DGCCRF): Sarah Lacoche

• Dot Europe: Constantin Gissler

• dTest: Jan Šůra

• EDRI: Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal

• Eurocommerce: Christel Delberghe

• European Tech Alliance: Victoria de Posson

• Kilpailu- ja kuluttajavirasto (KKV): Riikka Rosendahl

• Medialiitto (Finnmedia): Riikka Tähtivuori

• Netflix: Madeleine de Cock Buning

• Prestashop: Atalante de Vilallonga

• SMEunited: Sophia Zakari

• Spanish Consumer Association (OCU): Enrique Garcia Lopez

• Spotify: Olivia Regnier

• Test Achat (euroconsumers): Els Bruggeman

• The Netherlands Authority for Consumers and Markets (ACM): Edwin van Houten

• Ubisoft: Emmanuel Martin

• UFC-Que Choisir: Frithjof Michaelsen

• Vorständin Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband: Ramona Pop

If readers would like more information about the event, I may share additional details about it in my next posts.

Timeline

• 16/10/2025: IMCO Vote on Protection of minors online INI (Amendments)

• 24/10/2025: End of Consultation for the DFA

• 12/11/2025: Indicative EP plenary sitting for Protection of minors online report

• End of November: CPAG Meeting

• Q4 2025: Adoption of the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• Q3 2026: Commission publishes DFA proposal

Stay in Touch

As always, feel free to reach out on LinkedIn or at james@edpi.eu if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

Christoph Busch’s Paper: Making the DFA “Agent-Ready”

Christoph Busch’s new paper frames agentic AI as the blind spot the Digital Fairness Act cannot afford. If the DFA is drafted without explicitly accounting for autonomous multi-step AI agents, it risks being outdated on arrival.

Busch’s central prescription is not simply more rules, but adaptation: existing consumer law must be retooled so it works when machines, not humans, execute transactions. He argues that the DFA should:

• Explicitly bring agentic AI into scope so the Act does not assume a human is always the direct decision-maker.

• Mandate “agent-friendly” but protective interfaces: standard APIs (not just human buttons) for purchases, cancellations, withdrawals, with built-in confirmation/consent signals that keep the consumer in control without breaking automation.

• Embed consumer protection by design for agents: require agents to surface their actions, allow human override, log decision rationales, and constrain goal-pursuit to prevent them becoming “manipulation engines.”

• Update fairness and transparency tests to account for agents, clarify how the average consumer benchmark applies when an AI acts and ensure existing transparency rules cover both manipulation by and of agents.

• Guard against new vulnerabilities: impose resilience requirements to defend agents from adversarial hijacking and ensure agents themselves do not exploit behavioural asymmetries.

DFA Consultation Questionnaire as Policy Signal

Emanuele Francesco Pirozzi points out that the consultation isn’t just soliciting input, it’s already signalling core structural choices. It foregrounds the legal-form question (Directive vs. Regulation) in Section 8, Question 7. More substantively, the questionnaire lays out several concrete policy elements: a “fairness-by-design” obligation, possible reversal of the burden of proof where asymmetries hinder consumers or enforcement, a revised definition of “consumer”, calibrated targeting of vulnerabilities, and mandatory age verification/estimation to ensure both protection and accessibility for minors.

Already Over 3000 Feedback Submissions

The written feedback portal is already showing over 3000 submissions, mostly from EU citizens, a clear signal that public attention is active and noise around the DFA is already forming. The number of respondents to the formal questionnaire isn’t publicly disclosed, but it’s likely similarly high given the visible engagement. What’s notable is that this surge isn’t just coming from typical stakeholder channels.

Gaming communities have taken an interest, even spawning memes on Reddit and YouTube videos, most notably from Youtuber Ross Scott aka Accursed Farms of the Stop Killing Games movement that helped mobilise responses from players. The most popular demand from gamers is that the Commission prevent video game publishers from permanently disabling video games they have already sold. This was not expected to be within the scope of the Digital Fairness Act, but if enough pressure is placed on the Commission, it could be included in the official proposal.

Feedback Period Extended

The public consultation feedback period for the Digital Fairness Act has been extended: it now runs until 24 October 2025 (previously 9 October).

Broader DFA Conversation

Two early readouts outline where the DFA debate is sharpening, one on how it will be operationalised, the other on what it must define clearly to be enforceable:

• Freshfields – Draws attention to the rising policy prioritisation of minors’ safety (including national pressure like France and Norway) and the granular treatment of influencer marketing (e.g., retouched images disclosures). Reports the launch of Implementation Dialogues (first held 15 July 2025) as a new tool to test stakeholder buy-in and alignment across existing consumer law frameworks. Also surfaces the DFA’s dual ambition of simplification and interoperability with digital identity infrastructure.

• Osborne Clarke – Flags that “dark patterns” lack a clean legal definition, making enforcement opaque, and urges the DFA to enable a differentiated approach: identify which interface practices need bespoke rules versus better application of existing instruments. Highlights structural enforcement gaps (intent + harm thresholds) and the risk that current actions against dark patterns are hidden inside other compliance cases unless the DFA builds clarity and tracking.

• ERA Annual Conference on European Consumer Law (Trier, 9–10 October 2025) – The programme includes a roundtable at 16:00 on 9 October titled “The big bet on achieving digital fairness for consumers – towards the Digital Fairness Act”, with Urs Buscke (BEUC), Monika Namysłowska (University of Łódź), Anna Sophia Oberschelp de Meneses (Covington & Burling), and Martins Prieditis (DG JUST).

Work at DIGITALEUROPE on the DFA

DIGITALEUROPE is recruiting a Policy Officer for Data Economy with a clear mandate that includes the Digital Fairness Act (alongside copyright and AI intersections). It’s a chance to shape industry positions, drive engagement with EU institutions, and feed into DIGITALEUROPE’s 2030 manifesto at a critical inflection point. Ideal candidates will have EU digital policy experience, strong advocacy skillset, and comfort translating DFA complexity for member alignment; familiarity with consumer protection issues under the DFA is a plus. Applications (CV + motivation) are due by the end of 4 August 2025, with the role available immediately.

Foundational Reads for the DFA

I curated the following books because they offer real insight for people engaging with the Digital Fairness Act, whether you’re drafting policy, advising stakeholders, building compliant products, or just trying to understand its contours. The links below are Amazon affiliate links, if you buy through them I may earn a commission at no extra cost to you. Prices and availability can change, so please check the current price on Amazon.

• Dark Patterns, Deceptive Design, and the Law by Mark Leiser

• Logging Off: The Human Cost of Our Digital World by Adele Zeynep Walton

• Deceptive Patterns Exposing the Tricks Tech Companies Use to Control You by Harry Brignull

Timeline section

• 31/08/2025: End of Consultation for the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• 24/10/2025: End of Consultation for the DFA

• 12/11/2025: Indicative EP plenary sitting for Protection of minors online report

• Q4 2025: Adoption of the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• Q3 2026: Commission publishes DFA proposal

Spread the word and Stay in Touch

I’m grateful to the media outlets and reports that have already given credit. If you are a journalist or analyst sharing something you first saw here, I would appreciate a quick nod, either a link to the newsletter or just credit “James Tamim” so others can follow the thread. No formal citation needed, just a simple mention.

As always, feel free to reach out on LinkedIn or at james@edpi.eu if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

Visit DigitalFairnessAct.com, your go-to hub for all things related to the Digital Fairness Act.

The Commission just updated the Digital Fairness Act “Have your Say” page, and the public consultation is now open until 9 October 2025.

CALL FOR EVIDENCE

382KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

I will provide more details soon!

Stay in Touch

You are welcome to reach out to me via LinkedIn or email (james@edpi.eu) if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

Visit DigitalFairnessAct.com, your go-to hub for all things related to the Digital Fairness Act.

European Consumer Summit 2025

The European Consumer Summit took place on the 20^th of May, bringing together MEPs, Commission officials, and consumer groups to discuss the priorities for the upcoming Digital Fairness Act.

In one of the thematic discussions, Professor Monika Namysłowska advocated for a clear, binding list of prohibited practices under the new legislation, pointing to the model already used in the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive: “We can have a blacklist like now in Annex I of the UCPD.”

MEP Christel Schaldemose emphasised the urgency of strengthening safeguards for minors online: “I hope that my initiative report, with hopefully the support of the Parliament sooner or later, will be the basis for the Digital Fairness Act so that we can close the loopholes we still have when it comes to protection of minors.”

Since the Commission hasn’t made the livestream available for replay, I’ve uploaded it to YouTube. You can watch the replay here:

• High-Level Panel - with Michael McGrath

• Thematic Discussion 1 - Effective enforcement

• Thematic Discussion 2 - A Safe Digital Market for Young Consumers

Parliamentary INI Protection of Minors Online Draft Report

Schaldemose is referring to the European Parliament’s own-initiative report on the “Protection of Minors Online” for which she serves as rapporteur. The final report is expected to be voted on in November and many interest groups are engaging with MEPs regarding this.

The report calls on the Commission to ensure that the upcoming Digital Fairness Act guarantees a high level of protection for minors who play video games, in particular by prohibiting loot boxes, in-app currencies, pay-to-progress and pay-to-win mechanisms, and other randomised content in exchange for real money in games likely to be accessed by minors.

It further demands the swift adoption of ambitious, pragmatic guidelines under the Digital Services Act to enforce age verification and harmonise fragmented age-assurance mechanisms across the Union, strengthen independent oversight of very large platforms’ risk assessments, and establish an EU-level rapid alert system for emerging harmful trends. The draft also advocates a horizontal legislative initiative to ban addictive design features such as infinite scrolling, autoplay, rewards for continuous use and algorithmic “rabbit holes” and calls for a revision of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive to clearly outlaw dark patterns. Finally, it presses for an extension of the DSA’s prohibition on targeted advertising to all traders, stricter rules on influencer marketing, and robust transparency and watermarking requirements for AI-generated content under the AI Act to prevent manipulation of minors online.

IMCO Draft Report: Protecting Minors Online

166KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Commission CPAG Meeting Minutes

The minutes of the Commission’s last CPAG meeting in April are now available.

CPAG Minutes April

147KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

In the Consumer Policy Advisory Group’s plenary meeting on April 3rd, business stakeholders emphasised that the Digital Fairness Act must be calibrated to close only well-defined gaps in the existing digital rulebook ensuring coherence with DSA/DMA obligations and avoiding duplicative or overlapping requirements. Consumer representatives cautioned against limiting the vulnerability remit to children alone, calling instead for a dynamic, risk-based concept of vulnerability that would impose due-diligence obligations across all consumer cohorts and sectors.

BEUC Shein

On 5 June 2025, BEUC and 25 consumer organisations filed a formal complaint with the European Commission and national authorities accusing SHEIN of using dark patterns like fake scarcity messages and nagging notifications to push shoppers into buying more than intended. This action builds on the Commission’s own Shein probe into deceptive online practices under the powers granted by the Digital Services Act (DSA). The result of this could influence the content of the Digital Fairness Act.

DSA Guidelines on Protection of Minors Online: Loot Box Ban

The Commission’s consultation on the guidelines for the protection of minors under the DSA (article 28) propose that online platforms must prevent minors from accessing virtual items with random or gambling-like features, such as loot boxes, and introduce friction between content and purchases to mitigate excessive spending and addictive behaviours (Page 25, Lines 661–665). Stakeholders are now watching to see if these protections will be enshrined in the forthcoming Digital Fairness Act, especially given Commissioner McGrath’s emphasis on combating addictive design features and bolstering safeguards for minors under the DFA framework. Leon Xiao points out that this proposition in the DSA (article 28) “feels rather snuck in”.

Article 28 DSA - Guidelines for public consultation

605KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

CEP My Data is Mine Award

The Consumer Empowerment Project announced the My Data Is Mine Award 2025. They are running a call for papers targeting young scholars under 35 on the topic of “Digital Fairness and Data Protection in the Age of AI”. Selected participants will have the opportunity to present at Web Summit Lisbon and be featured in the 2026 edition of the My Data Is Mine book, unveiled annually at the Privacy Symposium in Venice. You can submit your papers before the September 30th deadline here.

Joint industry statement on the DFA

Last week, DOT Europe, Allied for Startups, IAB Europe and other industry groups published a joint statement on the Digital Fairness Act.

CPDP Conference 2025 - Rewatch

The CPDP Conference 2025 took place in May and hosted two key panel discussions on the Digital Fairness Act. These events are now available online to rewatch.

The “Towards the Digital Fairness Act” panel featured Maria-Myrto Kanellopoulou who is the Head of Unit for Consumer Law at the European Commission’s Directorate-General for Justice and Consumers. Alongside Kanellopoulou on the panel was Simona de Heer who is the Tech Policy Advisor for Green MEP Kim van Sparrentak.

The “Designed to Hook” panel welcomed Kim van Sparrentak.

Consumer Agenda 2025-2030

The feedback period for the Consumer Agenda 2025-2030 was extended by three weeks. The deadline is now August 31^st 2025.

Joint Industry Statement On The Digital Fairness Act

253KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Timeline

• Late Spring 2025: Public Consultation on the DFA

• 31/08/2025: End of Consultation for the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• 12/11/2025: Parliament INI - Protection of minors online (Indicative plenary sitting date)

• Q4 2025: Adoption of the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• Q3 2026: Commission publishes DFA proposal

Stay in Touch

You are welcome to reach out to me via LinkedIn or email (james@edpi.eu) if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

Visit DigitalFairnessAct.com, your go-to hub for all things related to the Digital Fairness Act.

Consumer Agenda 2025-2030 - Have your say

On 19 May 2025, the European Commission opened a public consultation on its Consumer Agenda 2025–2030 and the accompanying action plan on consumers in the Single Market, inviting contributions until 11 August 2025. Stakeholders are encouraged to share views via the Have Your Say portal and there is a high likelihood that shared feedback will influence the Digital Fairness Act.

The new Agenda, seeks to build on the achievements of the New Consumer Agenda 2020–2025 by strengthening consumer protection, supporting wellbeing, and driving a level playing field for businesses across the Single Market. The need for a Digital Fairness Act originated from the 2020–2025 Agenda.

Importantly for our readers tracking the Digital Fairness Act, the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda explicitly flags the forthcoming DFA as a flagship legislative initiative to tackle manipulative and unethical practices online such as dark patterns, misleading influencer marketing, addictive design features, and problematic personalisation that fall outside the scope of the Digital Services Act and Digital Markets Act.

Call for Evidence Details

436KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

A summary of the consultation results will be published within eight weeks of the consultation’s closure.

European Consumer Summit 2025

Today, the European Consumer Summit 2025 opens in Brussels with policymakers, enforcement authorities, businesses and consumer groups convening to discuss consumer protection, cross-border e-commerce and the new Consumer Agenda. A key workshop on shaping a safe digital market for young consumers is informed by the Digital Fairness Fitness Check, underlining the areas where the upcoming Digital Fairness Act will seek to close regulatory and enforcement gaps. This event is being live streamed via the European Commission’s site.

Digital Fairness Act Public Consultation Imminent

The “Have your say” webpage for the consultation has been published which suggests that the consultation will start imminently. To be clear, it is not yet open for public feedback. The consultation is expected to last 12-week.

The webpage suggests that the final proposal for the DFA is once again pushed back, this time to the third quarter of 2026.

Initially the webpage stated that the DFA would be a directive, but when asked for clarification the Commission stated that this was a technical error and "It is not decided yet whether the DFA will take the form of a Directive or a Regulation".

CPDP.ai Conference - DFA Events to Attend

Here’s a look at the CPDP Conference 2025 panels most directly tied to the Digital Fairness Act, running 21–23 May 2025 in Brussels (CPDP Conference 2025):

• Towards the Digital Fairness Act: How to Better Protect People from Harmful Commercial Practices Online
  Maritime • Wed 21 May — 11:50–13:05
  Debates updating EU consumer law to tackle dark patterns, addictive design, influencer marketing and unfair personalisation (CPDP Conference 2025).

• Designed to Hook: The Roots of Platform Addiction and Ways Forward
  Grande Halle • Thu 22 May — 08:45–10:00
  Explores the psychology and design tactics behind addictive platforms and potential regulatory responses (CPDP Conference 2025).

• Delivering on Children’s Rights Online: An Improved Digital World for All?
  Maritime • Thu 22 May — 10:30–11:45
  Looks at how a DFA could embed age-appropriate design, data protections and safe-by-default settings for minors (CPDP Conference 2025).

• The EU’s Next Move on Online Advertising
  Grande Halle • Fri 23 May — 16:00–17:15
  Considers the post-DSA/DMA landscape and how a DFA might reshape online ad regulation and enforcement (CPDP Conference 2025).

DFA Timeline

• 19/05/2025: Consultation for the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• 20/05/2025: European Consumer Summit

• Late Spring 2025: Public Consultation on the DFA

• 12/11/2025: Parliament INI - Protection of minors online

• Q4 2025: Adoption of the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• Q3 2026: Commission publishes DFA proposal

Stay in Touch

You are welcome to reach out to me via LinkedIn or email (james@edpi.eu) if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

Visit DigitalFairnessAct.com, your go-to hub for all things related to the Digital Fairness Act.

McGrath: Timeline Shift to Mid‑2026

On March 13, EU Commissioner Michael McGrath, speaking at the “Future of Transatlantic Digital Collaboration” event hosted by the Center for Strategic & International Studies in Washington, DC, confirmed a key update on the Digital Fairness Act timeline.

I raised a question to McGrath about the DFA, and he emphasized that while the proposal addresses critical gaps in current consumer protection measures—such as addictive design, dark patterns, influencer transparency, and subscription traps—it is not meant to add unnecessary regulatory burdens. Instead, it aims to modernize protections for the digital age.

Notably, McGrath announced that, following extensive consultations and a comprehensive impact analysis, the proposal is now slated for mid-2026—a small shift from the previously anticipated early-2026 timeline. This adjustment is intended to ensure ample engagement with both American and European stakeholders, thereby reinforcing the Commission’s commitment to informed and balanced policymaking in the evolving digital landscape.

Kim van Sparrentak Calls Out Rumours on DFA

On March 12, during the EU Consumers Day debate at the Parliament’s plenary, Green MEP Kim van Sparrentak voiced unease over persistent rumors suggesting that the Commission might diminish the ambition of legislations like the Digital Fairness Act to appease Trump and US tech giants.

Van Sparrentak questioned whether US companies should be limited on European soil, arguing that their unchecked power poses a threat to democracy, public health, and societal well-being. Her remarks reinforce the urgent call for robust regulatory measures that not only protect consumers but also uphold Europe’s digital autonomy.

Kim van Sparrentak is expected to play a significant role in Parliament on the Digital Fairness Act, where she is expected to serve as shadow rapporteur for the legislation.

BEUC “Better Safe Than Sorry”

On February 18, BEUC published a comprehensive position paper titled "Better Safe Than Sorry" outlining policy recommendations to create a safer online environment for children across social networks, digital services, and the gaming world. The report calls for measures such as safe-by-default settings and restrictions on addictive design features. It directly urges that the upcoming Digital Fairness Act include an open list of banned practices.

Beuc Better Safe Than Sorry

450KB ∙ PDF file

Download

Download

Upcoming Event

SME Connect will host an event in Parliament on the DFA and DSA on March 26.

DFA Timeline

• Spring 2025: Public Consultation on the DFA

• Q2 2025: Consultation for the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• 03/04/2025: CPAG Meeting

• 20/05/2025: European Consumer Summit

• Q4 2025: Adoption of the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• Mid 2026: Commission publishes DFA proposal

I’m in Brussels - Stay in Touch

I will be moving to Brussels this week, excited to experience the EU Bubble in person! You are welcome to reach out to me on LinkedIn if you have any requests, questions, or want to get coffee!

Commission Targets Early 2026 for DFA - Takeaways from EPP Hearing

On January 15, 2025, the EPP Group organised a hearing on the protection of minors online, hosted by MEP Dóra Dávid. One of the panels focused on the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) and featured statements by Maria-Myrto Kanellopoulou from the Commission’s DG JUST. Kanellopoulou echoed Commissioner McGrath’s recent non-committal remarks regarding when a fully-fledged proposal would be ready. She noted that “the DFA will not be presented before 2026,” which should give the Commission sufficient time to launch its 12-week public consultation in the spring and conduct a thorough impact assessment. According to Mlex, the proposal is likely to appear in early 2026.

The Commission is also expected to launch “a new wide inquiry on the broader impacts of social media on well-being,” the findings of which may shape its approach to the DFA.

The Commission wants to emphasize that it is being cautious about adding new compliance burdens, seeking to limit additional reporting requirements for businesses. However, industry representatives and some MEPs—including Dóra Dávid and Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz—have urged the Commission to prioritise enforcing existing legislation such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) rather than introducing new measures like the DFA. Business representatives have pushed this viewpoint since the Consumer Policy Advisory Group’s (CPAG) plenary meeting in November. In concluding the panel, Kanellopoulou issued a sharp response: “Let’s not kid ourselves. It’s not just a question of enforcement. […] It’s also a matter of lack of legal clarity. And there we really need to intervene. We need more concrete laws.”

Kim van Sparrentak: Shadow Rapporteur on the DFA

A source has revealed that Kim van Sparrentak will serve as the Green group’s shadow rapporteur for the DFA. She was previously the rapporteur for the 2023 European Parliament resolution on the Addictive Design of Online Services. Van Sparrentak is expected to push for strict rules on addictive design for all ages and may advocate a ban on practices like endless scrolling and autoplay. She raised these issues with Commissioner McGrath during his confirmation hearing in November 2024.

Consumer Policy Advisory Group Plenary Meeting

We have obtained minutes from the Commission’s CPAG plenary meeting on November 28, 2024, which confirm the Commission’s plan to hold a public consultation by Q2 2025 at the latest for the Consumer Agenda 2025–2030. The objective is to finalise the Consumer Agenda 2025–2030 in Q4.

Although the DFA was also discussed, new details were minimal. Notably, the next European Consumer Summit is scheduled for May 20, 2025, and the next CPAG meeting for April 3.

CPAG Minutes 28/11/2024

1.01MB ∙ PDF file

Download

Consumer Policy Advisory Group Meeting On 28 November 2024 - Minutes

Download

Consumer Leadership Academy on the Digital Fairness Act

Applications are now open for the 6th edition of the Consumer Leadership Academy, taking place in Warsaw from May 7 to 9, 2025, with a focus on the DFA. This annual free program is run by the Consumer Empowerment Project, managed by Euroconsumers and Google.

Upcoming Events

• The European Lotteries will host an event on the DFA on February 5, 2025, at the European Parliament.

• Taylor Wessing will hold an online webinar on the new powers of the UK’s CMA and the DFA on February 5.

• Lanzcape will host an online webinar on engaging with the DFA on February 12.

DFA Timeline

• Spring 2025: Public Consultation on the DFA

• Q2 2025: Consultation for the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• 03/04/2025: CPAG Meeting

• 20/05/2025: European Consumer Summit

• Q4 2025: Adoption of the 2025–2030 Consumer Agenda

• First half of 2026: Commission publishes DFA proposal

Stay in Touch

You are welcome to reach out to me on LinkedIn if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

Visit DigitalFairnessAct.com, your go-to hub for all things related to the Digital Fairness Act.

Not a Regulation?

Contrary to popular assumptions, it is possible that the Digital Fairness Act will not be a regulation. Instead, it may end up being a package of instruments including amendments to past regulations and directives. This is according to Christoph Busch who has highlighted this as a possibility after attending the Commission’s latest Consumer Policy Advisory Group (CPAG) meeting. It is unclear if this was the stated desire of a specific stakeholder or if the Commission explicitly expressed this as a possibility. As we have seen so far, most MEPs who have spoken on the DFA or Fitness Check, while highlighting certain necessary changes, do not appear to strongly support an ambitious version of the DFA. Actors who are anxious about additional red tape seem to currently have an upper hand as concerns over the EU’s inability to create rivals to Amazon and Meta are growing. The Commission is understandably remaining vague on its plans for the DFA at this early stage, but this means anything is possible. The DFA may indeed only be a patch, or package of amendments rather than an ambitious regulation like the DSA.

CERRE Report Identifies Questions to Address for the DFA To Succeed

Last week, CERRE published a paper authored by Amelia Fletcher and Christoph Busch titled “Shaping the Future of European Consumer Protection: Towards a Digital Fairness Act?”. Rather than offering immediate policy recommendations, Busch and Fletcher present foundational questions to guide future debates on the Digital Fairness Act. Ultimately, they aim to reconcile various policy objectives: “ensuring a high level of consumer protection in the digital environment and facilitating effective enforcement, while promoting competitiveness and growth, which in turn requires avoiding over-regulation”. The paper addresses the five areas for improvement identified by the Commission from its Digital Fairness Fitness Check:

1. Addressing the most harmful problematic practices.

2. Reducing legal uncertainty, preventing regulatory fragmentation between Member States and promoting fair growth/competitiveness.

3. Consistent application of EU consumer law and other EU digital legislation.

4. More effective enforcement and compliance with EU consumer law.

5. Simplifying existing rules, without compromising a high level of consumer protection.

In Other DFA News

• Michael McGrath is bringing in experts from DG Justice and Commissioner Reynders’s office. Two notable recruits join McGrath’s team to work on the Digital Fairness Act. Egelyn Braun who was responsible for the Fitness Check is now policy coordinator in McGrath’s cabinet. Lucie Rousselle who had previously worked under Didier Reynders on consumer policy will also join McGrath’s cabinet.

• The public consultation on the DFA announced by Isabelle Pérignon is expected to start in spring 2025 according to Contexte.

• DigitalEurope publicly calls for the Commission to “halt plans for a Digital Fairness Act” in Politico.

Upcoming DFA Events

Allied For Startups is hosting an event on the Digital Fairness Act on December 11th, from 11:00 to 13:30 in Brussels.

Are you organising an event on the Digital Fairness Act? Let us know and we will notify our subscribers on our next newsletter!

Stay in touch

You are welcome to reach out to me on LinkedIn, X, BlueSky if you have any requests, questions, or just want to say hi!

Visit DigitalFairnessAct.com, your go-to hub for all things related to the Digital Fairness Act.

The MEPs present showed no strong desire for new ambitious regulations like the expected Digital Fairness Act. One should note that among the five MEPs present was Dóra Dávid who had previously asked Commissioner McGrath a question pertaining to the DFA. Safe to assume that she may become one the most active MEPs on the DFA file.

• Dóra Dávid stressed the need for consistent application of current rules and enhanced cooperation between various authorities before introducing new legislation.

• Laura Ballarín Cereza highlighted the risks young people face from dark patterns, price manipulation, and addictive designs like infinite scrolling and loot boxes.

• Kamila Gasiuk-Pihowicz emphasised that while the EU has advanced consumer protection laws, enforcement is lacking, leading to significant economic and mental health costs.

• Sandro Gozi pointed out unacceptable manipulations in targeting and influencer practices, and the difficulty consumers face in exiting digital contracts.

• Zala Tomašič raised concerns about the dominance of platforms like Apple and Google, which can disadvantage startups and small businesses in their app stores.

See my post on Linkedin for a more detailed breakdown of what each MEP asked.

In Other DFA News

• 20/11/2024: We published a “What is the Digital Fairness Act?” article which lists specific examples of Dark Patterns and Addictive design practices which are likely to fall under the DFA.

• 14/11/2024: Ecommerce Europe, EuroCommerce and Independent Retail Europe presented the results of a study they commissioned about “Digital Fairness in Online Retail”. The paper was presented by Prof. Dr. Jürgen Kühling, LLM and Cornelius A. Sauerborn.

• 12/11/2024: Euractiv held an event on the DFA “Building a safer digital environment – Protecting consumers in the EU”.

Stay Up To Date On The DFA

EDPI: LinkedIn - X - Youtube
James Tamim: LinkedIn - X - BlueSky
DigitalFairnessAct.com

This newsletter outlines key points and quotes from Commissioner McGrath about the Digital Fairness Act during the hearing. For a more detailed outline and all videos, visit our page dedicated to the hearing.

Commitment to Consumer Protection

In his opening statement, McGrath emphasized the need for enhanced consumer rights in the digital marketplace.

"I will take forward a Digital Fairness Act to reinforce consumer protection in targeted areas to complement the existing EU Digital Rulebook,"

Protecting Minors Online

A significant focus of the DFA is safeguarding children from harmful online practices. Responding to questions about protecting minors, McGrath highlighted the unique challenges they face.

"The purpose of the Digital Fairness Act when it comes to minors is not about replicating anything that's done in any other legislation," he explained. "We would be naive to think that the preeminence of these features and games are not having a long-term impact."

Addressing Dark Patterns and Addictive Design

McGrath acknowledged concerns about manipulative online tactics such as dark patterns and addictive design features.

"I will address dark patterns, marketing by social media influencers, addictive design of digital products, and unfair personalisation practices,"

Avoiding Legislative Duplication

MEPs raised concerns about potential overlaps with existing laws. McGrath assured them that the DFA aims to fill gaps rather than duplicate.

"The Digital Fairness Act is not about layering additional requirements that are already in other bodies of law," he clarified. "This is about closing gaps that are there, which will help to protect and support consumers."

Taking on Big Tech and Harmful Practices

When questioned about confronting powerful tech companies, McGrath expressed his readiness to tackle challenging issues.

"Yes, we can do something, and we will do it together when we bring forward this file," he responded. "We understand the business model of big tech... we are going to have to address this in the Digital Fairness Act."

Dynamic Pricing and Shrinkflation

Addressing concerns about dynamic pricing and shrinkflation, McGrath indicated that these issues would be considered within the DFA framework.

"I want to look at this in the context of the Digital Fairness Act," he said regarding dynamic pricing. On shrinkflation, he emphasized the importance of transparency: "It's important that there is full transparency for consumers in relation to any changes in the quality or the composition of products."

Michael McGrath's hearing shed light on his commitment to enhancing consumer protection through the Digital Fairness Act. He claims that by targeting specific gaps in current legislation, the DFA will create a safer and fairer digital environment for all consumers, especially minors.

What’s Next?

Although it is unlikely we will hear much more on the DFA during the Commission’s hearings, one should keep an eye on Virkkunen’s hearing on Tuesday 12 November from 18.30 to 21.30 (CET). Commissioner on Tech Sovereignty, Security and Democracy Henna Virkkunen will head the largest number of digital policy files compared to other Commissioners. In her pre-hearing written response to Parliament she briefly stated that she will take a supporting role on McGrath's DFA. We will update our newsletter subscribers and website as soon as we hear more about the Digital Fairness Act.

Subscribe now

As the Digital Fairness Act approaches, this site will serve as a one-stop hub for news, expert analysis, and in-depth information, helping all stakeholders stay informed on this crucial regulation. With a commitment to neutrality, independence, and accessibility, the site seeks to make complex policy details understandable and relevant to a broad audience.

Explore our resources, stay up-to-date, and join the conversation on the EU's Digital Fairness Act. For inquiries or collaboration opportunities, reach out to us at contact@edpi.eu.

While praising the recently adopted Digital Services Act (DSA) and Digital Markets Act (DMA) as groundbreaking steps that positively impact consumer protection, McGrath noted that the Digital Fairness Fitness Check revealed remaining shortcomings. "We need more clarity about what is allowed and what is not allowed online," he stated, calling for targeted and proportionate measures to address these issues.

McGrath plans to focus on four core areas:

1. Dark Patterns: Implementing stricter regulations to eliminate manipulative design practices that deceive consumers.

2. Influencer Marketing: Ensuring transparency and accountability in online endorsements to protect consumers from undisclosed promotional content.

3. Addictive Design: Curbing design features that exploit user psychology to foster unhealthy engagement.

4. Problematic Personalization: Preventing the exploitation of consumer vulnerabilities through personalized content that may be misleading or harmful.

He also highlighted the need to assess challenges related to digital contracts and subscriptions, such as complicated cancellation procedures. Special attention will be given to protecting minors online, recognizing them as active users who are particularly exposed to risks due to their status as early adopters of new technologies like social media and video games.

McGrath envisions the Digital Fairness Act as a complementary piece of legislation that will enhance the coherence and consistency of the EU's digital regulatory framework. For example, while the DSA sets design obligations for online platforms to address dark patterns, the Digital Fairness Act could extend supplementary obligations to other commercial actors.

Emphasizing practical enforcement, McGrath committed to ensuring that the new digital rulebook is monitored and enforced in a way that is coherent with existing consumer legislation. "I will... ensure that it is monitored and enforced in a coherent and complementary way with consumer legislation, so as to ensure effective protection and competitiveness," he affirmed. He also acknowledged the importance of considering business perspectives to make the rules "easy to implement and least burdensome."

McGrath's proposals signal a concerted effort to strengthen consumer rights in the digital sphere, aiming to provide clearer guidelines and robust protections that allow consumers to fully benefit from the digital market.

Michael McGrath's confirmation hearing is scheduled for Tuesday 5 November from 9.00 to 12.00 (CET).

You can find more information on our page dedicated to the hearing.

The findings highlight that while current laws provide a strong framework, adaptations are needed to address issues unique to digital markets, such as "dark patterns" in user interfaces, which often manipulate consumer choices, and the addictive design of digital services, especially in gaming and social media platforms. The report notes that consumers frequently have trouble managing subscriptions and cancelling digital services, with such challenges leading to an estimated annual loss of €7.9 billion across the EU.

The Commission also raised concerns about the fragmented enforcement of consumer protection laws across member states, suggesting that harmonization and improved enforcement could enhance legal certainty and reduce costs for compliant businesses. This report will inform future regulatory actions, potentially paving the way for a new "Digital Fairness Act" aimed at creating a safer and fairer digital space for all EU consumers.

We have published a page dedicated to this report where you can find the full report, summary, and other relevant resources.

The resolution calls on the European Commission to explore policy and regulatory options to counteract addictive digital designs, possibly through revising existing laws like the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. Members emphasized the need for “ethical design” defaults that prioritize user autonomy, allowing consumers to turn off attention-seeking features easily.

Additionally, the Parliament recommended implementing a "digital right not to be disturbed," which would give users control over potentially addictive elements, such as by offering weekly usage summaries and timed reminders to manage screen time. This initiative underscores growing legislative efforts to protect consumers in an increasingly digital world and addresses concerns over the mental health effects of excessive digital engagement.

We have published a page dedicated to this resolution where you can find the full text of the final resolution, summary, video of the vote, and other relevant resources.