Digital Fairness Act: Key Questions and Answers on EU's Upcoming Consumer Protections

The European Union is moving from creating new digital laws to enforcing them. With the Digital Services Act, Digital Markets Act, and AI Act now in place, attention turns to the proposed Digital Fairness Act (DFA). This legislation aims to update consumer rules for modern digital markets, targeting harmful practices like dark patterns and exploitative personalization. The Electronic Frontier Foundation (EFF) has weighed in with recommendations emphasizing privacy and user control. Here are the key questions and answers about this important policy.

1. What is the EU's Digital Fairness Act and why is it needed?

The Digital Fairness Act (DFA) is a proposed EU law designed to update consumer protection rules for the digital age. The European Commission’s “Digital Fairness Fitness Check” revealed that existing consumer laws are outdated and fail to address modern risks such as manipulative interface designs and data exploitation. The DFA seeks to close these gaps by prohibiting deceptive practices and ensuring that users can make informed choices online. It complements earlier laws like the Digital Services Act by focusing specifically on consumer fairness in commercial transactions.

2. How does the EFF define “digital fairness” in the context of the DFA?

For the EFF, digital fairness means tackling the root causes of harm rather than imposing superficial fixes. It requires protecting fundamental rights like privacy and freedom of expression while empowering users. The EFF argues that fairness cannot be achieved through measures that expand surveillance, such as mandatory age verification. Instead, policymakers must address the structural imbalances created by business models based on mass data collection. True fairness means giving users real control over their digital lives, not just a false sense of security.

3. What are dark patterns and why does the EFF want them banned?

Dark patterns are interface designs that trick users into making choices they wouldn’t otherwise make, such as sharing more personal data or agreeing to unwanted services. These tactics undermine autonomy and informed consent. While the Digital Services Act partially bans dark patterns, its scope leaves gaps in consumer law. The EFF recommends that the DFA introduce explicit prohibitions against all misleading commercial interfaces, without mandating specific design solutions. Such a ban would preserve user freedom while stopping companies from exploiting cognitive biases for profit.

4. Why does the EFF caution against age verification mandates and similar surveillance-based measures?

The EFF warns that age verification requirements often lead to expanded surveillance, such as demanding government IDs or tracking user behavior. These measures create privacy risks and can be easily abused by platforms. They provide a false sense of protection while failing to address underlying issues like predatory design. Instead of forcing users to prove their age, the DFA should focus on holding platforms accountable for harmful practices. Surveillance-based fixes shift power to corporations and undermine the very rights the law should protect.

5. How can the DFA strengthen user sovereignty and what does that mean?

User sovereignty means that individuals have genuine control over their digital experiences, including the ability to choose services, adjust settings, and leave platforms without penalty. The EFF argues that the DFA should tackle practices that lock users in, such as coercive contract terms or manipulative defaults. Strengthening user sovereignty also supports European digital sovereignty by reducing dependence on dominant platforms. Practical measures include banning default consents that are hard to opt out of and ensuring that users can easily switch between providers.

6. What structural imbalances does the DFA need to address according to EFF?

The root of many digital harms lies in surveillance-based business models that incentivize data extraction. The EFF says the DFA must prioritize privacy as a first principle, not an afterthought. It should also tackle market power imbalances that limit user choice. By focusing on these structural issues, the law can create a level playing field for users and smaller businesses alike. Reforms should make it easy for users to reject tracking and prevent platforms from using their dominant position to impose unfair terms.

7. How could the DFA complement existing EU digital laws like the DSA and DMA?

The DSA targets illegal content and platform accountability, while the DMA regulates gatekeepers. The DFA would fill a consumer protection gap, directly addressing deceptive design and unfair commercial practices. Together, these laws form a coherent framework: the DSA governs content moderation, the DMA ensures fair markets for competitors, and the DFA protects individual users in everyday transactions. The EFF emphasizes that all three must be enforced in a rights-respecting way, avoiding measures that trade privacy for supposed safety.