Standfirst: A draft European Commission proposal would prohibit ten online design practices considered unfair, including misleading scarcity warnings, pre-selected extras and difficult subscription cancellations. The proposed Digital Fairness Act would also introduce new protections for children, free-trial users and people relying on AI shopping assistants, but it still requires approval from the European Parliament and EU member states.
The European Commission is preparing a major overhaul of EU consumer protection rules aimed at websites, apps, online games and digital services. According to a leaked draft of the proposed Digital Fairness Act, ten forms of manipulative interface design would be placed on a blacklist and treated as unfair in all circumstances.
The proposal is not yet law. It is expected to be formally presented on Wednesday, after which negotiations with the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union would determine whether the measures are adopted and in what form.
What the Digital Fairness Act would change
The draft would replace the 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive with a regulation applying directly across all 27 EU member states. Unlike a directive, a regulation would not normally require each country to transpose the central rules into separate national legislation.
At the centre of the proposal is a list of so-called dark patterns. These are interface techniques designed to steer consumers towards purchases, subscriptions or data-sharing decisions they might not otherwise make.
The draft identifies ten practices that would be considered unfair without authorities having to prove individual harm in every case:
- Making cancellation significantly harder than registration or purchase.
- Hiding prices, renewal conditions or other important terms.
- Falsely implying that consumers have no reasonable alternative.
- Making unqualified claims about a product’s availability or popularity.
- Repeating scarcity warnings throughout the checkout process.
- Using pre-selected options to add products or increase quantities.
- Presenting refusal as the wrong, harmful or irresponsible choice.
- Repeatedly asking users to reverse a decision they have already made.
- Using confusing double negatives to obscure consent.
- Displaying fake notifications suggesting that another person has contacted the user.
The Commission could also be given authority to add new practices to the list without reopening the entire legislative process, although the final scope of that power would depend on negotiations.
Subscriptions, pricing and online sales
The proposed EU consumer rules would address several common complaints about digital purchasing. Companies would have to make it easier to end an online contract, including through a clearly available “terminate the contract here” function.
Free trials could not automatically become paid subscriptions unless the consumer actively agreed to the change. Users would also receive reminders before automatic renewals and gain a right to speak with a human customer-service representative.
The draft would prohibit drip pricing, where unavoidable charges appear only at the final stage of checkout. It would also restrict discount claims based on a manufacturer’s recommended retail price when that figure does not reflect a genuine comparison with a real market price.
Dropshipping businesses would face additional obligations where their marketing could mislead consumers about products, sellers or delivery arrangements.
New protections for children online
Children are a particular focus of the proposed Digital Fairness Act. The draft would prohibit paid loot boxes and pay-to-win features for minors in video games.
In-game currencies would have to display their equivalent real-world value. They would also be switched off by default for children unless a parent or guardian approved their use.
Advertising based on profiling children would be prohibited for all traders, rather than only for the largest online platforms already subject to restrictions under the Digital Services Act.
The proposal would also give users more control over engagement features. People could switch off autoplay, notifications unrelated to their own activity, streak rewards and chatbot functions designed to simulate personal relationships and encourage continued use.
Rules for AI shopping agents
The draft would extend consumer protection into emerging AI-assisted shopping. Users would be able to decide which purchases require their explicit approval, rather than allowing an automated agent to complete every transaction.
AI shopping agents would also have to identify sponsored recommendations. That requirement is intended to help consumers distinguish independent suggestions from paid commercial placement.
These provisions could become increasingly relevant as retailers and technology companies introduce automated tools that compare products, recommend purchases and interact with consumers on their behalf.
Potential penalties and expected impact
The draft would allow the European Commission to fine companies by up to 6% of their global annual turnover in serious cases. The precise enforcement arrangements, including the roles of national authorities, would be settled during the legislative process.
The Commission’s impact assessment estimates that the measures could prevent €88.4 billion in consumer financial losses between 2025 and 2035. It also estimates annual benefits of €13.7 billion when time lost to unfair commercial practices is included, compared with recurring business costs of approximately €678 million a year after overlapping measures are taken into account.
Those figures are estimates rather than guaranteed outcomes. Their relevance will depend on the final text, enforcement resources and how national authorities apply the rules.
Germany raises concerns about the approach
The proposal already faces opposition from Germany. In a non-paper dated 14 October, the German government argued that existing consumer directives should be amended instead of creating a new horizontal law covering a broad range of digital practices.
Berlin also said that the case for converting the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive into a directly applicable regulation had not been sufficiently demonstrated. This indicates that negotiations could focus not only on the individual prohibited practices, but also on the legal structure of the reform.
Consumer Commissioner Michael McGrath has presented the initiative as both a consumer-protection and business measure, arguing that clearer rules could reduce administrative complexity. Industry groups and national governments may nevertheless seek changes before the proposal advances.
What happens next?
The European Commission must first publish the formal proposal. It will then be examined by the European Parliament and the Council of the European Union, which represents national governments. Both institutions must agree on the legislation before it can be formally adopted.
If approved, the regulation would apply 12 months after entering into force. Until then, existing EU and national consumer-protection rules remain in place, including the current Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and provisions of the Digital Services Act.
For Ireland, the proposal could affect retailers, app developers, gaming companies, subscription services and online marketplaces operating in the single market. Irish consumers would benefit from the rules only once the measure is adopted and its application date arrives.
Conclusion
The proposed Digital Fairness Act would give the EU a broader response to manipulative online design, covering subscriptions, pricing, gaming, advertising and AI-assisted shopping. The draft represents a significant Commission proposal, not an adopted law: the final result will depend on negotiations between the European Parliament, EU governments and the Commission.