The Digital Fairness Act: Getting ready for the next wave of digital regulation

On 11 November 2026, the European Commission published its proposal for a Digital Fairness Act (DFA), setting out new rules for how businesses market, sell and provide products and services to consumers. The proposals cover a wide range of practices, including dark patterns, influencer marketing, personalised advertising and pricing, gaming, subscriptions and automated shopping.

The proposal which will now be discussed by the European Parliament and Council gives businesses a much clearer picture of the changes that could be coming. For many, compliance could require more than changes to terms and conditions, with potential impacts on website and app design, pricing models, marketing practices and customer service processes.  

This article looks at the key proposals, what they could mean in practice and how businesses can assess how they may be affected.

Who could be affected?

The DFA would replace the existing Unfair Commercial Practices Directive with a directly applicable EU Regulation. The familiar rules on misleading and aggressive commercial practices would remain but would be supplemented by more specific requirements designed for today’s digital environment. Despite its name, the wider framework would continue to apply to both online and offline commercial practices.

Importantly, the proposals are relevant beyond businesses established in the EU. The Commission explains that the framework would apply to businesses targeting EU consumers, meaning UK businesses selling to EU customers should also consider how they could be affected.

The DFA would also form part of the EU’s wider digital rulebook, alongside the Digital Services Act, GDPR and AI Act, as well as the proposed EU KIDS Act. Businesses already navigating these regimes will therefore need to consider how the different requirements interact.

What are the key proposals?

The DFA seeks to address the following themes:

• Dark patterns and addictive design: The proposal takes aim at online designs that push people towards choices they might not otherwise make. Think false claims that something is running out, pre-selected extras or fake notifications. Businesses whose digital products encourage compulsive or excessive use would also need to let consumers switch off certain features, such as autoplay, unrelated notifications or incentives designed to keep them coming back regularly.
• Influencer marketing and personalisation: It should be obvious when an influencer is advertising. Posts would need to be clearly labelled as an “advertisement” or “commercial collaboration”. Brands and agencies using influencers would also need to take appropriate steps to make sure the rules are followed, rather than leaving compliance to influencers alone. There would also be tighter limits on personalised advertising: businesses could not use profiling to target adverts using sensitive personal data, such as health information, or the personal data of someone they know with reasonable certainty is under 18. Personalised pricing would not disappear altogether, but businesses could not use profiling to set prices in ways reasonably likely to harm children or vulnerable consumers.
• Gaming and in-app spending: Consumers should be able to see what they are really spending online. Where paid-for virtual currencies are used, businesses would need to show the monetary value, or estimated monetary value, of the items being bought. Paid-for random rewards, such as loot boxes, would need to explain what consumers could receive and the chances of receiving it. Consumers would also need an easy way to switch these features off. There would be stronger protections for children, including restrictions on paid-for random rewards and pay-to-win or pay-to-progress features.
• Pricing and promotions: The price people see should give them a fair picture of what they will actually pay. Businesses would generally need to include unavoidable charges that are known upfront, rather than adding them later at checkout. Certain ways of presenting savings would also be restricted. For example, a business could not use a crossed-out price or percentage saving based on an estimated or recommended price, such as an RRP, as though it represented a specific price reduction. There would also be extra transparency where prices can change. Businesses selling event tickets would need to say how many tickets are available at the advertised price and the maximum price customers could pay. Virtual queues would need to display the current price, whether it could change while customers wait and, if so, the maximum price. The virtual-queue rules could also be relevant outside ticketing, for example to online launches involving limited stock and particularly high demand items.
• Subscriptions and online cancellation: Free trials should not quietly turn into paid subscriptions. Businesses would need to remind customers before a free trial ends and get their express agreement before charging them. There would also be reminders before certain automatic renewals. Broadly, if a business offers customers the option of entering into contracts online, it would need to provide a clear and easy way for them to end their contracts online too. This would make existing cancellation rights easier to use, rather than creating a general right to leave any contract at any time.
• Customer service and automated shopping: Consumers should not be stuck with a chatbot that cannot solve their problem. Where online customer service is not working, businesses would need to make communication with a person available on request. Investment services would be excluded because separate financial-services legislation already applies.

The proposal also looks ahead to automated systems that can shop on a consumer’s behalf. Consumers would be able to decide which purchases the system could make without checking with them first and change those settings later. If the business providing the system is paid to suggest a particular contract, or has a conflict of interest with the seller, the system would need to flag this and obtain the consumer’s approval before completing the purchase.

Recasting the EU unfair commercial practices regime

Alongside the proposals above, Chapter II would bring together the existing unfair commercial practices rules under the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD), which have become increasingly fragmented through successive amendments set out across various directives, and upgrading these to regulation status.  

The familiar prohibitions on misleading actions and omissions would remain, with some minor amendments such as in relation to the definition of vulnerable consumers, and more practices would be banned outright.  

The list of automatically unfair practices (often referred to as 'banned practices') would grow from 47 to 62, some of which are designed to achieve the proposals set out above. Ten of these new banned practices specifically target dark patterns. However, two new bans would address misleading dropshipping practices relating to false claims about stock levels when the trader uses a dropshipping service, and preventing consumers from exercising their rights against the seller because their order has been fulfilled by a third-party.  

The list of banned practices in the UCPD has become somewhat confused by the fact that various new banned practices have been added to the original list over the years, including most recently via the Green Transition Directive and, before that, the Omnibus Directive. The DFA helpfully now consolidates all banned practices into a single list.  

How will the new rules be enforced?

The potential consequences are significant. Alongside the DFA, the Commission has proposed changes to the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation. The proposed framework would allow direct Commission enforcement of widespread infringements with a Union dimension, subject to specified exclusions. For DFA infringements investigated by the Commission under that framework, potential fines could reach up to 6% of the trader’s worldwide annual turnover.  

National courts and authorities could also gain powers, subject to evidential thresholds and proportionality safeguards, to require businesses to provide evidence about the design, operation and behavioural impact of their online practices.

What should businesses consider now?

The proposal whilst under consideration by the European Parliament and Council may change.  There is therefore no need for businesses to redesign their customer journeys overnight. However, businesses can start identifying where the proposals may have the greatest impact. In particular, they should consider:

• Reviewing customer journeys: identify default settings, scarcity messages, pricing disclosures and any friction that makes it harder for consumers to change or refuse a choice.
• Checking marketing arrangements: review influencer agreements and oversight processes, as well as how customer data is being used to personalise advertising and prices.
• Assessing products and subscriptions: map relevant engagement features, in-app spending mechanics, free-trial conversions, renewal reminders and cancellation journeys.
• Bringing the right teams together: legal, product, marketing, technology and customer service teams are all likely to have a role in identifying where operational changes could be needed.

TLT will be hosting a webinar on the DFA on 2 December between 12:00 – 13:00.  To attend, please sign up here.  

If you would like to discuss how the new rules could affect your business, or the steps you can take now to prepare, please get in touch with one of the contacts below.

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at November 2026. Specific advice should be sought for specific cases. For more information see our terms & conditions.