Explanatory memorandum
1. Context of the proposal
Reasons for and objectives of the proposal The digital era has fundamentally transformed consumer experiences. It has enabled faster, more convenient and wider access to an ever-increasing range of goods and services. At the same time, it has given rise to new and more sophisticated ways of influencing consumers’ choices. Along with the indisputable benefits in choice and efficiency, the extensive use of digital technologies allows both old and new unfair commercial practices to affect consumers at scale, exacerbating risks to their economic interests, as well as to their mental and physical wellbeing. Vulnerable consumers are particularly affected.
Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Unfair Commercial Practices Directive’ or ‘UCPD’)1 constitutes one of the cornerstones of the EU consumer protection acquis. As a maximum harmonisation instrument, the UCPD establishes a single, common set of rules on unfair commercial practices in the Union, thereby enhancing legal certainty for both traders and consumers and removing barriers to cross-border trade. Its scope is broad: it applies to all unfair commercial practices, including misleading actions or omissions as well as aggressive commercial practices before, during and after a transaction; it covers all consumers including vulnerable consumers, such as children, and all types of traders. It applies to any trader targeting consumers in the EU, including when these traders are established outside the EU. It serves as a general safety net with respect to unfair commercial practices. The framework was however conceived in a market that pre-dated the data and attention economy, influencer marketing, personalisation, subscription-based digital services, or in-app purchases.
The Fitness Check of EU consumer law on digital fairness2 evaluated the UCPD together with Directive 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council (the ‘Consumer Rights Directive’ or ‘CRD’)3 and Council Directive 93/13/EEC4 over the period 2017-2023. It concluded that the three Directives remain relevant and necessary to ensure a high level of consumer protection online and the effective functioning of the Digital Single Market and that their principle-based architecture has delivered the regulatory certainty needed for a diverse market in consumer-facing digital products. At the same time, the Fitness Check also pointed to gaps and legal uncertainties in consumer protection legislation that significantly affect consumers and businesses alike.
The present proposal for a Digital Fairness Act responds to the mandate to tackle unethical techniques and commercial practices related to dark patterns, marketing by social media influencers, the addictive design of digital products and online profiling, especially where consumer vulnerabilities are exploited for commercial purposes5.
This proposal is to be read in conjunction with the proposal for a Directive amending Directive 2011/83/EU as regards simplification of Union consumer protection rules6.
This proposal was announced in the 2030 Consumer Agenda7 and included in the Commission work programme 20268. It also responds to the European Parliament resolutions calling for legislation against addictive design and a Digital Fairness Act to address targeted advertising, influencer marketing, addictive design, loot boxes, in-app currencies and dark patterns9. In its Conclusions on the 2030 Consumer Agenda, also the Council recognised “the need to address existing regulatory gaps”10. The co-chairs of the Special Panel on child safety online identified the upcoming Digital Fairness Act and the revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation as a key opportunity to embed the protection of children and adolescents at the heart of EU consumer law11.
The proposal for a Digital Fairness Act has two components.
First, it converts the substantive law on unfair commercial practices from a directive into directly applicable Union law, a regulation. This will replace 27 transposing regimes of the Member States and reduce the scope for divergent national interpretations that the Fitness Check identified as a driver of fragmentation and legal uncertainty. It is also a legal precondition for centralising consumer law enforcement in specific cases at Union level, as envisaged by the Commission’s proposal to revise the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation12.
Second, it addresses the shortcomings identified in the Fitness Check by introducing substantive rules on: dark patterns, influencer marketing, unfair personalisation and spending-maximising practices, addictive design, unfair marketing practices related to prices and fairness in contracts, to the extent that such practices qualify as B2C commercial practices. It also includes horizontal measures and a number of targeted simplification measures identified as capable of reducing burdens without loss of consumer protection. As indicated above, the simplification elements are also partly laid down in the Directive on simplification of Union consumer protection rules, which is part of the same legislative package as this initiative.
This proposal aims to:
– reduce the detriment that consumers, including children and other vulnerable groups, suffer as a result of problematic digital practices;
– improve traders’ compliance with consumer protection rules in the digital markets;
– provide a more harmonised set of rules to facilitate businesses’ cross-border transactional activities.
Consistency with existing policy provisions in the policy area The proposal for the Digital Fairness Act is coherent with other EU priorities and with the Commission’s priorities for consumer protection. It repeals and replaces Directive 2005/29/EC in its entirety. The substance of that Directive – the general clause, the provisions on misleading actions and omissions, aggressive practices, and the practices listed in Annex I
– are carried over while maintaining the level of consumer protection13.
Several Union acts refer to Directive 2005/29/EC. The proposal, therefore, provides that references to the repealed Directive must be read as references to this Regulation.
In addition, the proposal for a Directive on simplification of Union consumer protection rules proposes targeted amendments to the Consumer Rights Directive to reduce administrative burdens for traders while maintaining consumer protection in the digital sphere.
In parallel, the Commission is proposing a revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 of the European Parliament and of the Council14. The aim of that revision is to strengthen the existing enforcement coordination system for national authorities and to centralise enforcement in specific cases at EU level, including in areas covered by the Digital Fairness Act.
Consistency with other Union policies The proposal for the Digital Fairness Act is also coherent with the existing digital rulebook, including the Digital Services Act (DSA), Digital Markets Act (DMA) and AI Act, the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), the Digital Omnibus and ongoing initiatives, such as the proposal for an EU KIDS Act, and the review of the Audiovisual Media Services Directive (AVMSD).
In particular, the proposal is complementary to the DSA, the AI Act, the proposal for an EU KIDS Act and the upcoming AVMSD review and provides a safety net for consumer protection in the digital environment.
The DSA establishes a harmonised horizontal framework governing the responsibilities of providers of intermediary services and, in particular, imposes obligations relating to the transparency, safety and accountability of online platforms, including specific obligations concerning the protection of minors and the assessment and mitigation of systemic risks. The present proposal addresses the fairness of commercial practices, including design choices that may affect consumers’ ability to make free and informed decisions, in the digital environment generally, regardless of the traders’ business model, without duplicating the Digital Services Act.
The AI Act establishes harmonised rules for the placing on the market, the putting into service and the use of AI systems to promote the uptake of human-centric and trustworthy AI in the Union, while ensuring a high level of protection of health, safety and fundamental rights, including the right to consumer protection. The present proposal aims to strengthen consumer protection in the digital environment, regardless of the technology used. It complements the AI Act by establishing certain rules with which AI tools should comply when used by consumers.
The proposal for an EU KIDS Act establishes harmonised specific requirements to enhance the safety and age-appropriateness of risky services and systems (‘social media +’) used by minors. The present proposal complements those measures by establishing a horizontal framework for the fair treatment of consumers in the digital environment, including in relation to practices that may affect children as young consumers, without duplicating the EU KIDS Act. The present proposal interchangeably refers to children and ‘minors’, both defined as any natural person under the age of 18.
The proposal is also coherent with the AVMSD and its ongoing review, which covers, inter alia, commercial communications and the protection of minors in audiovisual media services and video-sharing platform services.
The complementary application of the digital rulebook and consumer law instruments can ensure comprehensive and effective consumer protection15 and contribute to efficient enforcement.
2. Legal basis, subsidiarity and proportionality
Legal basis The proposal is based on Article 114 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU), which is also the legal basis of Directive 2005/29/EC (adopted based on Article 95 of the Treaty establishing the European Community). Article 114 TFEU provides for the approximation of laws and commits the EU to a high level of consumer protection, to ensure the functioning of the internal market in line with Article 26 TFEU. Article 169 TFEU and the Charter of Fundamental Rights (Article 38) recall the aim of a high level of consumer protection, with Article 169 TFEU referring specifically to protecting the health, safety and economic interests of consumers.
Article 114 TFEU is the appropriate legal basis. The proposal aims to remove obstacles to the cross-border supply of goods and services in digital markets which arise from divergent national rules in the areas covered by the proposal, and to prevent the emergence of such obstacles, which the Fitness Check identified as a foreseeable risk. The policy area falls under shared competence pursuant to Article 4(2)(a) and (f) TFEU. Therefore, the principle of subsidiarity applies, and the proposal is subject to the subsidiarity control mechanism under Protocol No 2.
Subsidiarity Consumer protection issues, especially in the digital sphere, are intrinsically cross-border, arising from digital markets that operate across the EU. In areas fully harmonised by Directive 2005/29/EC, Member States are unable to act unilaterally to resolve legal uncertainty at EU level, which increases the risk of divergent interpretations resulting in different levels of consumer protection and business risks. Where Member States act to address issues not yet fully harmonised at EU level, they also tend to adopt divergent approaches, creating obstacles to cross-border business activities and fragmenting the internal market.
There is a strong added value of action at EU level. Nearly all EU citizens and a significant proportion of EU businesses are affected by the problems identified in the impact assessment for the initiative; many originating from practices of businesses that operate cross-border.
Action at EU rather than national level would therefore create significant effects of scale.
Fully harmonised EU rules also contribute to more effective and less costly enforcement due to synergies in the actions of national enforcers, and, if the proposal for the reform of the Consumer Protection Cooperation is also adopted, due to centralised enforcement at EU level in specific cases16.
Proportionality The proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives.
First, the change of instrument does not, in itself, change the level of harmonisation. Directive 2005/29/EC is already a full harmonisation directive. Converting that directive into a regulation removes the need for transposition by the Member States and further reduces the scope for divergence.
Second, the conversion does not extend Union competence into areas previously reserved to the Member States. The express derogations from full harmonisation are preserved. Article 3(9) of Directive 2005/29/EC permits Member States to impose more restrictive requirements in relation to financial services and immovable property; Article 3(5) permits more protective national rules to counter aggressive or misleading practices in the context of unsolicited visits to a consumer’s home and of commercial excursions. Both derogations concern predominantly offline or sector-specific conduct outside the area pertaining to digital fairness and are relied on by many Member States. They will continue to exist.
Third, the proposal does not go beyond what is necessary to achieve its objectives. As described in Section 6 of the Impact Assessment Report17, the policy options have been assessed also in light of the anticipated proportionality of the retained measures with regard to addressing the identified problems. The new substantive obligations represent the least intrusive option capable of achieving the objective and are, therefore, proportionate as also explained in Section 7.2 of the Impact Assessment Report.
Choice of the instrument The proposal for the Digital Fairness Act takes the form of a regulation, for the following reasons. First, it responds to the call by the European Council to favour regulations over directives18 reflected in Commission’s Communication “A Simpler, Clearer and Better Enforced EU Rulebook”19. Second, it reduces the scope for legal uncertainty caused by possible differences in transposition, divergent national interpretations and gold-plating, which is key to cut red tape and bring simplification. Third, it creates the legal precondition to vest in the Commission direct investigation and enforcement powers in relation to commercial practices covered by the Digital Fairness Act in specific cases under the revised Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation.
3. Results of ex-post evaluations, stakeholder consultations and impact assessments
Ex-post evaluations/fitness checks of existing legislation The Fitness Check20 evaluated the three consumer law Directives21 against the five better regulation criteria for the period 2017-2023. Its conclusions may be summarised as follows:
– Effectiveness: the Directives are only partially effective since consumer complaints and detriment remain high, legal uncertainty and legal gaps persist, and there is risk of regulatory fragmentation and insufficient enforcement.
– Coherence: is positive with limitation; the internal coherence is consistent and mutually reinforcing while the external coherence is generally complementary to other EU legislation.
– Efficiency: also positive with limitation as the costs and benefits are balanced at societal level and compliance costs are not considered high with significant benefits for consumers, traders and authorities and specific areas with potential for simplification (e.g. information obligations, right of withdrawal).
– EU added value: EU legal framework achieves moderately or significantly better outcomes than could have been achieved by Member States.
– Relevance: is positive with limitations. The objectives remain highly relevant and there are benefits of a technology-neutral safety-net framework. Different technological and market developments will have an impact on fitness for purpose and are expected to do so at a faster pace in the future (e.g. growing use of AI, automation, personalisation). Application of other EU legislation will impact the relevance of consumer law.
Stakeholder consultations In line with the Better Regulation guidelines, there were extensive consultations to ensure the widest possible participation of stakeholders.
Consultation activities included:
– A public consultation, open for feedback from 17 July 2025 to 24 October 2025;
– A call for evidence published on the “Have your say” portal, running in parallel with the public consultation;
– A quantitative survey with businesses;
– A quantitative survey with consumers (aged 15 years and older);
– A quantitative survey with children (aged 7-14);
– A series of behavioural experiments with consumers (aged 15 years and older);
– A series of behavioural experiments with minors (aged 12-17);
– Qualitative research (focus group discussions) with minors (aged 12-17);
– Three targeted stakeholder surveys with:
• Business associations;
• Consumer associations;
• Public authorities.
– Targeted stakeholder interviews with representatives from businesses, business associations including SME representatives, consumer associations, civil society organisations, including organisations representing children, youth and other vulnerable groups, and academics;
– Roundtable discussions with key stakeholders on specific topics;
– A consultation of children via the EU Children's Participation Platform;
– An Implementation Dialogue with Commissioner McGrath on consumer protection in the digital environment on 15 July 2025;
– A Youth Policy Dialogue on the Digital Fairness Act on 17 and 18 June 2026;
– Desk research of relevant academic literature, articles, policy papers and online resources.
Account has been taken also of the recommendations of the co-chairs of the Special Panel on child safety online published on 13 July 2026, informed notably by the results of the 2026 Eurobarometer on the impact of excessive screen time and social media on young people’s mental health22. Digital fairness was also among the topics discussed at the first meeting of President von der Leyen’s Youth Advisory Board, which took place on 3 December 2025 and the Youth Policy Dialogue on Protecting Young People online on 22 September 2026.
A synopsis report of the stakeholder consultation is part of Annex 2 of the Impact Assessment Report.
The factual summary report of the Public Consultation was published on 19 December 202523. The public consultation received 3 341 responses from a broad range of stakeholders, including consumers, businesses, SMEs, consumer and civil society organisations, public authorities, and academic and research organisations. The consultation covered dark patterns, addictive design, specific features in digital products such as video games, unfair personalisation, influencer marketing, pricing-related practices and digital contracts. Overall, the responses showed substantial support for further EU action in the digital environment.
Among the 1 733 responses24, 72% supported new binding EU rules on dark patterns, 70% on addictive design, 70% on specific features in digital products and 70% on unfair personalisation, and 68% on influencer marketing.
The consultation also highlighted the importance of effective enforcement and coherence with the existing EU legal framework. While respondents supported a range of measures to strengthen consumer protection, some businesses and business associations stressed the need to avoid overlaps, duplication and unnecessary regulatory complexity. Support among SMEs for the measures presented in the consultation was generally higher than among large enterprises and business associations. The results therefore point to a need for targeted EU action addressing identified gaps, while ensuring consistency with existing legislation, reducing fragmentation and maintaining a level playing field in the Single Market.
The necessity to convert the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive from a directive into a regulation to grant the Commission direct enforcement powers in specific cases in relation to practices covered by the Digital Fairness Act was discussed with stakeholders in the context of an Implementation Dialogue on cross-border enforcement cooperation in consumer law on 6 May 202625. Moreover, the Impact Assessment Report26 accompanying the Commission’s proposal to revise the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation includes an overview of national consumer protection authorities’ view on the conversion of the UCPD.
Collection and use of expertise The Commission relied on the external evaluation study supporting the Fitness Check, on the external study supporting the initiative for a Digital Fairness Act, surveys of authorities, behavioural research, the Consumer Conditions Scoreboard, the work of the Joint Research Centre, and on independent academic literature. The supporting studies are published and referenced in the annexes to the Impact Assessment Report.
Impact assessment The proposals are supported by an impact assessment, on which the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB) issued a positive opinion with reservations on 3 July 202627.
The RSB commented that: (1) in the problem definition, the interrelation between dark patterns, addictive design and unfair personalisation practices should be clarified; (2) some policy measures should be more clearly defined; (3) some methodological shortcomings of quantifications, in particular of revenue effects for businesses, and inherent uncertainties related to impacts of measures should be better reflected; and (4) the report should assess in more detail the coherence of the intervention with other relevant initiatives.
The Impact Assessment Report28 has subsequently been updated addressing these points.
For each of the identified areas of problematic online practices, between 3 and 4 policy options were examined against the baseline.
In addition, the impact assessment assessed several horizontal and simplification measures.
Based on that assessment and the comparison of options, the preferred overall policy option is composed as follows:
Summary overview of the preferred overall policy option Policy option General prohibition of B2C dark patterns as unfair commercial practices with respect to coupled with a flexible list of dark patterns that are prohibited in all dark patterns circumstances. Removal of Article 16e CRD.
Policy option to Clearer definition of “transactional decision”. Price transparency on the address spending- real value of in-app purchases using virtual currencies and the maximising probabilities of winning for virtual offers with uncertainty-based products and rewards (loot boxes). All consumers can turn off virtual offers with addictive design uncertainty-based rewards. Some spending-maximising practices features prohibited for minors, with the remaining turned off by default. Supporting self-regulation for video games and legal obligation for video games to have an age-appropriate rating. All consumers can turn off attention-maximising features, with some prohibited for minors and the remaining turned off by default.
Policy option to Personalised advertising targeting minors and personalised advertising address unfair based on special categories of personal data as defined under the GDPR personalisation or consumers’ vulnerabilities is prohibited. Personalised pricing towards practices minors or based on consumers’ vulnerabilities is prohibited when leading to less favourable results.
Policy option to Definition of influencer marketing as commercial practice and address clarification of the obligation to saliently disclose commercial content.
problematic Removal of obligation to disclose geographical address for influencers influencer who do not directly sell to consumers. Obligation for other actors in the marketing influencer marketing chain (e.g. brands and advertising agencies) to require influencers to comply with EU law. Prohibition of influencer marketing of certain harmful or otherwise unsuitable products, including to minors.
Policy option to The real-time evolution of the price and the maximum price must be address unfair displayed when consumers are waiting in a virtual queue for their pricing practices chance to buy. "Drip pricing” and specific misleading techniques in price comparisons are prohibited. In a dynamic pricing context, traders must disclose how many items are available to consumers at the advertised price.
Policy option to Consumers receive a reminder before the start of a paid contract period address issues after a free trial and have to actively accept the paid contract. Consumers with digital receive a reminder before a paid subscription is automatically renewed contracts and can terminate an automatically extended subscription any time with short notice. Traders have to provide an easy cancellation facility. Consumers can set parameters of automated systems used in contracting. Reduced information requirements for contracts fully automated on the trader and consumer side. Consumers have the right to access a human interlocutor in customer services.
Horizontal The definitions of “average consumer” and “vulnerable consumer” are measures updated to account for the specificities of the digital environment. The burden of proof is eased in technologically complex cases. A general fairness-by-design obligation is introduced, without being linked to specific process requirements.
Simplification Traders no longer need to provide mandatory pre-contractual measures information about the right of withdrawal when the consumer explicitly agrees to receive immediate access to online digital content. For digital media (audio and video) service subscriptions, the current 14-day right of withdrawal is replaced with a right to cancel the contract during the first month, subject to paying the full subscription fee for that month. Reduced information requirements apply for repeat in-app purchases.
The preferred option is expected to be very effective, as it directly targets harmful practices that impair decision‑making, through stronger safeguards, opt‑outs, default protections and specific restrictions for minors, thereby delivering large reductions in financial consumer detriment – of EUR 88.4 billion over the period 2025-2035 – and strong distributional benefits for vulnerable consumers and minors. The preferred option is also expected to have positive health effects, possibly resulting in monetised avoided societal costs between EUR 2.7 billion and EUR 18.5 billion per type of problematic practice per year29. It is also effective in addressing unfair competition by introducing stronger, clearer, more uniform safeguards.
More specific rules could facilitate the development of automated methods to detect infringements. Further, the overall preferred option foresees the procedural measure of easing the burden of proof, which is expected to facilitate enforcement especially in cases concerning personalised commercial practices. This measure will contribute to ensuring the long-term effectiveness of enforcement. Finally, it is expected to facilitate cross-border transactions by harmonising legislation across the EU.
On a yearly basis, the consumer detriment reduction - covering both financial detriment and monetised time losses30 - would reach EUR 13.7 billion, while the yearly recurrent costs for business are estimated at EUR 1.2 billion without adjustment and EUR 678 million adjusted for overlaps between the measures and across topics.
Environmental impacts are limited and indirect; social impacts are positive, in particular for minors and for consumers in situations of vulnerability.
The initiative contributes to Sustainable Development Goals 3, 10, and 12, as analysed in Annex 3 to the Impact Assessment Report.
The preferred option is implemented via this proposal for a Digital Fairness Act, and for the simplification measures via the proposal for a Directive on simplification of the Union consumer protection rules. Elements of the preferred option have been integrated also in the proposal for an EU KIDS Act, which relies partly on the impact assessment for this initiative.
Regulatory fitness and simplification The proposals are REFIT initiatives. The simplification component is addressed in the exploratory memorandum pertaining to the modifications of CRD under the proposal for a Directive on simplification of Union consumer protection rules.
The proposal is expected to have two additional burden-reduction effects. The first is structural: one directly applicable act replaces one directive and its 27 transpositions, strengthening harmonisation, and removing transposition costs for Member States and familiarisation costs for traders operating in more than one Member State. Second, consolidating into binding provisions the interpretation set out in the Commission Notice of 17 December 202131 reduces advisory costs, since traders and authorities will no longer have to derive obligations from a lengthy non-binding text.
The proposal creates a single set of adjustments that, once made, should improve the situation of all market participants. Consumers will enjoy clearer, more neutral choices, easier-to-understand pricing and fewer frictions when joining, using or leaving digital services, which builds trust. Large enterprises, with existing legal and compliance capacities, need only to recalibrate design standards and monetisation strategies, shifting towards longer-term, reputation-driven models that reduce short-term flexibility but increase predictability and lower enforcement risk. SMEs may face an initial compliance burden -redesigning interfaces, processes and documentation - due to the measures included in the proposal for the Digital Fairness Act, but will, at the same time, profit from burden reduction due to the simplification measures under the proposal for the Directive on simplification of Union consumer protection rules. In addition, after the initial changes, they will benefit from a simpler, more transparent competitive environment allowing them to focus on product quality and innovation. Finally, enforcement authorities will gain clearer, less ambiguous rules and tools that enable earlier, preventive interventions, greater consistency across Member States and more efficient, credible enforcement.
Overall, the proposal is compatible with EU competitiveness objectives. It does not induce systemic cost or innovation disadvantages and provides clear net gains for overall business and SME competitiveness, while steering innovation and competition towards more sustainable and trust-based market dynamics.
The proposal is digital-ready and consistent with the operation of the internet. It concerns an amendment and partial repeal of existing EU legislation, together with the introduction of new substantive rules in the area of consumer protection. However, it does not, as such, mandate the collection, processing, generation, exchange, or sharing of data to achieve its objectives. It also does not require developing or using any technologies that would digitalise or automate stakeholders’ processes or using any digital solutions to achieve the policy objectives. Finally, it does not impose the development of specific public services that would require digital means for their implementation. However, the initiative does not exclude the possibility for consumer protection authorities to consider using specific digital tools for the application of the policy.
Fundamental rights The proposal gives effect to Article 38 of the Charter and to Article 24, under which the child’s best interests must be a primary consideration in all actions relating to children, whether taken by public authorities or private institutions.
The proposal limits the freedom to conduct a business (Article 16). Those limitations are provided for by law, respect the essence of the rights concerned and are proportionate to the objective of consumer protection, in accordance with Article 52(1) of the Charter. The disclosure duties applicable to influencer marketing are confined to communications made in return for payment or other valuable consideration and do not extend to editorial or personal expression.
Article 21 (non-discrimination) is engaged by personalised advertising and pricing, which can produce differentiation correlating with protected characteristics; the proposal responds through transparency and through the prohibition of personalisation exploiting vulnerability.
Overall, the combination of policy measures contained in the proposed Regulation strikes a balance between consumer rights and the right to conduct business.
The European Data Protection Supervisor will be consulted in accordance with Article 42(1) of Regulation (EU) 2018/1725 of the European Parliament and of the Council32.
4. Budgetary implications
The proposal does not result in any human resource increases or other costs for the Commission and has, therefore, no budgetary implications. The current proposal does not introduce, modify, or affect the use of digital solutions, data aspects, or the provision of digital-public services. The proposal lays down rules on fair business-to-consumer commercial practices; it does not regulate the digital means for implementation. Considering that there is neither a budgetary impact, nor a digital dimension in this specific sense, it is not necessary to provide a legislative financial and digital statement.
5. Other elements
Implementation plans and monitoring, evaluation and reporting arrangements Since the proposal is a regulation, no transposition and no implementation plan are required.
Progress towards achieving the objectives of the proposal will be monitored by a series of core indicators (listed in the Impact Assessment Report). The monitoring framework will be subject to further adjustment according to the final legal and implementation requirements and timeline.
Detailed explanation of the specific provisions of the proposal Chapter I - General provisions (Articles 1 to 4) Article 1 sets out the subject matter and objectives. Article 2 defines the scope, reproducing that of Directive 2005/29/EC. Article 3 contains definitions and adapts them in view of the Court of Justice of the EU case law. Article 4 regulates the relationship with other Union legislation on commercial practices.
Chapter II - Unfair commercial practices This Chapter reproduces the substance of Articles 5 to 9 of Directive 2005/29/EC. Article 5 lays down the general prohibition and the test of professional diligence and amends the concept of vulnerability. Articles 6 to 9 address misleading actions, misleading omissions and aggressive practices.
Chapter III – Digital fairness Article 10 deals with dark patterns, clarifying that designing and organising online interfaces in a manner that is likely to materially distort consumers’ economic behaviour is prohibited. A list of dark patterns which are prohibited in all circumstances is introduced in Part III of Annex I. Online traders are prohibited from using such practices, as well as the other practices listed in Annex I, which does not differentiate between offline and online environment.
Article 10(3) empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to amend the list of dark patterns in Part III of Annex I in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection against such practices.
Article 11 deals with influencer marketing. It clarifies the manner in which salient disclosure of commercial communication should take place. It also prohibits influencers from exploiting minor’s’ trust. To protect consumers, including minors, it prohibits influencer marketing with respect to products for which advertising is prohibited under EU or national law or which are unsafe, and it imposes obligations on other traders in the influencer marketing chain to ensure that influencer marketing complies with the provisions of this Regulation.
Articles 12 and 13 deal with unfair personalisation practices. Article 12 extends existing prohibitions under the DSA to other traders, by prohibiting the targeting of advertising based on profiling to minors or using special categories of personal data when this could cause harm to the consumer. Article 13 prohibits personalised pricing based on profiling when this could cause harm to minors or vulnerable consumers.
Articles 14 to 16 deal with spending-maximising practices. Articles 14 requires transparency of prices when expressed in virtual currencies. Article 15 tackles matters related to variable reward systems, including the transparency of the probability of winning, a prohibition of such systems towards minors and an option to disable them for all consumers. Article 16 prohibits pay-to-win and pay-to-progress mechanisms for minors.
Article 17 requires traders to provide consumers who are not minors with the possibility to switch off addictive features that are intended to or can reasonably be foreseen to encourage compulsive or excessive use. Article 17(2) empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to amend the list of features intended or which can reasonably be foreseen to encourage compulsive or excessive use of the service and consumers should be able to disable in order to ensure a high level of consumer protection regarding such practices.
Articles 18 and 19 deal with transparency obligations for event tickets the price of which is dynamically increasing due to the trader’s actions or automated or algorithmic processes (Article 18) or where a trader makes use of virtual queue systems (Article 19).
Articles 20 to 27 deal with fairness in digital contracts. Article 20 lays down the right of consumers to receive a reminder and to actively accept the conversion from free trial into a paid contract. Articles 21 and 22 introduce the right of consumers to receive a reminder before an automatic extension of a long-term and short-term contract. Article 21 also stipulates that after an automatic prolongation of a contract for an indeterminate duration consumers may terminate it at any time with short notice. Additionally, an obligation for traders to provide an online contract termination facility (Article 23) and the right for consumers to access a human interlocutor in consumer services (Article 25) are introduced.
Article 24 regulates the exercise of the right of withdrawal from distance contracts concluded by the means of an online interface. Finally, Article 26 stipulates that consumers should be able to set the main parameters of automated systems used in contracting, and Article 27 simplifies pre-contractual information requirements for contracts fully automated on the trader and consumer side.
Article 28 protects consumers from unsolicited electronic communications for direct marketing purposes.
Article 29 prohibits traders from engaging in any behaviour that undermines effective compliance with their obligations in Chapter III.
Chapter IV- Enforcement, Remedies and Penalties This chapter deals with redress and enforcement. It is clarified that the Commission shall have powers to supervise and enforce compliance with this Regulation.
Article 30 concerns the enforcement of this Regulation by the Member States and the Commission.
Article 34 enables courts and competent authorities to, at the request of claimant who has presented facts and evidence sufficient to support the likelihood of an unfair commercial practice in the online environment or where a reasonable suspicion of an unfair commercial practice in the online environment exists, require the trader to produce relevant evidence relating to the design, functioning and impact on consumer behaviour of the relevant commercial practice.
Article 35 deals with penalties, including fines applicable to infringements of this Regulation investigated by the Commission pursuant to Chapter III of Regulation (EU) .../... of the European Parliament and of the Council on cooperation between national authorities and the Commission in the enforcement of consumer protection laws in the Union, amending Directive (EU) 2019/1937 and Regulations (EC) No 261/2004, (EC) No 1107/2006, (EC) No 1008/2008, (EU) No 1177/2010, (EU) No 181/2011, (EU) 2018/302 and (EU) 2021/782 and repealing Regulation (EU) 2017/2394 [New CPC Regulation].
Article 36 gives traders a right of recourse where an infringement for which they are found liable resulted from the actions or omissions of another person with whom they have a commercial relationship or where the conduct of another person with whom they have a commercial relationship contributed to the infringement. Member States are responsible for ensuring that effective, proportionate and dissuasive remedies exist enabling traders to exercise the right of recourse.
Chapter V- Final provisions Article 37 sets out rules for the exercise of delegation powers.
Article 38 repeals Directive 2005/29/EC with effect from the date of application of this Regulation. References to the repealed Directive are to be construed as references to this Regulation. The Chapter also contains provisions on the review of the Regulation, entry into force and application.
Annexes Annex I lists the commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair, reproducing the list annexed to Directive 2005/29/EC as amended by Directive (EU) 2019/2161 and Directive (EU) 2024/825. Commercial practices identified by the Fitness Check and in the impact assessment as particularly harmful to consumers, and which are highly prevalent especially in the digital environment.
Annex II to Directive 2005/29/EC is removed. The new Annex II contains a correlation table.
Cite this text
European Commission, Proposal for a Digital Fairness Act, COM(2026) 1100 final (11 November 2026), explanatory memorandum.