The Digital Fairness Act is the next big consumer law the European Commission plans to propose, and its target is the design of apps and websites that nudge people into spending more time or money than they intended. The Commission listed it in its 2026 work programme, COM(2025) 870, as a legislative initiative for the fourth quarter of 2026. That puts the proposal only weeks away.
The announced scope is broad. The Digital Fairness Act is expected to address dark patterns, meaning deceptive interface design that steers users towards choices they would not otherwise make. It also covers addictive design of digital products, marketing by social media influencers, and unfair personalisation practices that exploit consumer vulnerabilities for commercial gain. In addition, the Commission plans to streamline business obligations, including a review of certain consumer information requirements in some types of contract.
The reasons for acting are documented. A 2024 fitness check of the core EU consumer laws found that they only partly achieved their goals in the digital environment. Existing rules on unfair commercial practices, consumer rights and unfair contract terms were written before endless scrolling feeds, countdown timers and subscription traps became everyday tools.
The public consultation closed on 24 October 2025, and it exposed a deep divide. Consumer organisations asked for tighter rules, and more than 200 civil society groups sent an open letter urging the Commission to deliver an ambitious Digital Fairness Act. Platforms such as TikTok, by contrast, saw only a very limited need for EU-level regulation, arguing that existing laws already cover most problems.
Political pressure also comes from the institutions. The European Parliament has repeatedly called for action, including its December 2023 resolution on addictive design. In May 2024, Council conclusions invited the Commission and member states to foster responsible influencer behaviour, with particular attention to the impact on minors.
The Digital Fairness Act will not arrive in a vacuum. The Digital Services Act already regulates large platforms, and the Commission must show how the new law fits with it, with the AI rules and with data protection law. Businesses will push for clarity and fewer overlaps, while consumer groups will watch for loopholes that let companies relabel manipulative design as personalisation.
Three questions will decide how the proposal is received. Will it ban specific dark patterns or only set general principles that courts must interpret? Will it treat influencer marketing as advertising with strict disclosure duties? And will it give regulators and consumers practical remedies when a service is designed to be hard to leave?
Enforcement will be another hurdle. National consumer authorities already struggle to monitor thousands of apps and online shops, so the Commission may lean on its network of cooperating regulators and on collective redress for groups of consumers. How much power the Digital Fairness Act gives them to act quickly against a manipulative interface will shape its real impact.
Until the Commission publishes its text, those answers stay open. What is certain is that the Digital Fairness Act will shape how every online shop, game and social network designs its screens, and the debate over how far Brussels should go is about to move from consultation papers to formal legislation.
