European Commission announces its proposal for the Digital Fairness Act and revamped consumer protection governance

On 11 November 2026, the European Commission (Commission) announced its proposal for the Digital Fairness Act (DFA), alongside a proposed revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation (the CPC Proposal). The package aims to update EU consumer protection rules, and their enforcement, for digital markets. The DFA would make significant changes to the substantive rules so that consumers receive the same level of protection online as offline. The CPC Proposal would give the Commission direct enforcement powers in certain large-scale cases that affect consumers across the single market. 

Both proposals now pass to the European Parliament and the Council. Their final scope and application dates will depend on the ordinary legislative process. 

Key proposals

The DFA would replace the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive with a directly applicable regulation, while carrying over the core unfair commercial practices framework and adding new digital fairness rules. 

This conversion is a legal precondition for giving the Commission direct investigation and enforcement powers in specific cases under the CPC Proposal, as the Commission can only enforce provisions that are directly applicable in all EU Member States. It would also remove the need for national transposition. 

The DFA targets a range of digital practices, including: 

• Dark Patterns. A prohibition on online interfaces that are likely to deceive or manipulate consumers, or otherwise materially distort their economic behaviour. Part III of Annex I lists dark patterns that are prohibited in all circumstances, including false scarcity claims, certain pre-selected default options and persistent requests to change a choice already made. The Commission would be empowered to amend that list by delegated act.
• Unfair Personalisation. Profiling-based advertising would be prohibited where it targets minors or uses special categories of personal data. Profiling-based personalised pricing would be prohibited where it could harm minors or vulnerable consumers. 
• Influencer Marketing. Influencers must clearly disclose commercial content and must not exploit minors’ trust. Influencer marketing of products that may not be advertised under EU or national law, or that are unsafe, would be prohibited, and other traders in the marketing chain, such as brands, would have to ensure compliance. 
• Spending/Attention-maximising Design Features. Pay-to-win and pay-to-progress mechanisms would be prohibited for minors, and adult consumers could switch off ‘addictive’ features that encourage compulsive or excessive use. Prices in virtual currencies must be transparent. Variable reward systems (e.g., ‘loot boxes’) must disclose the probability of winning, can be disabled by all consumers, and are prohibited for minors. 
• Unfair Pricing Practices. Annex I lists practices that are unfair in all circumstances, including drip pricing and price comparisons based on a reference price that is not a current price charged by a clearly identified competitor. Where event ticket prices may rise dynamically, traders must disclose how many tickets are available at the advertised price and the maximum price. Traders using virtual queues must display the current price in real time, and the maximum price.
• Subscription Contracts. Consumers must be reminded before a free trial ends and must expressly agree before a paid contract begins. They must also be reminded before automatic extensions, and traders must provide an online contract termination facility. 

Consumers would also gain a right to contact a human in customer service, and could set the parameters of automated systems, such as AI agents, that conclude contracts on their behalf. 

The CPC Proposal would strengthen the enforcement framework behind these substantive rules. Consumer protection laws are currently enforced by national authorities, and transposition and enforcement of new directives can be uneven, as has been the case with the recent Empowering Consumers for the Green Transition Directive ((EU) 2024/825, “EmpCo”), which applied from 27 September 2026. 

The CPC Proposal would give the Commission direct powers to investigate and sanction certain large-scale EU-wide infringements, with fines of up to 6% of an undertaking’s worldwide annual turnover. As proposed, these are infringements that affect at least two-thirds of EU Member States which together account for at least two-thirds of the EU population, and the powers would not apply to traders that qualify as SMEs. The CPC Proposal also introduces clearer timelines for coordinated actions, aims to improve penalty coordination, and requires non-EU traders targeting EU consumers to appoint a legal representative in the EU. 

Why it matters

Consumer protection enforcement has moved at pace in the UK since the consumer enforcement regime under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) took effect in April 2025. The announced proposals indicate that the EU is moving in a similar direction. 

The DFA and the CPC Proposal are not yet law though. As drafted, each would apply 12 months after its entry into force. In the meantime, the European Parliament and the Council will debate both texts (which can result in amendments); the Commission does not expect the CPC Proposal to apply until 2028-2029. There is therefore a long road ahead to any implementation. 

Notwithstanding the longer timeframe, given the scale and significance of the proposed changes, businesses should begin assessing their exposure. Consumer-facing businesses should expect closer scrutiny of their online customer journeys, interface design, pricing practices and subscription terms (particularly renewal and cancellation). The proposals would also raise the stakes from an enforcement perspective for EU-wide conduct. The Commission would gain direct enforcement powers, as well as powers to update or add rules by delegated act (including the dark patterns list). The proposals would also put the Commission and EU Member States in a better position to hasten and coordinate cross-border investigations and penalties by setting expected timelines for key procedural events and coordinating on the assessment and collection of penalties.