EU Digital Fairness Act Draft: What UX, Consent and Marketing Teams Should Audit Now

The European Commission is due to present its Digital Fairness Act on Wednesday, November 11, 2026, and leaked drafts have already shown what is coming. According to a draft seen by Reuters, companies found to use unfair digital practices, such as dark patterns that push people to buy more or personalised advertising aimed at children, could face fines of up to 6% of annual global turnover. Drafts reviewed by Euronews, EUobserver and the French outlet Contexte add a blacklist of manipulative designs, new subscription and free-trial rules, and the EU’s first consumer-law provisions on AI shopping agents. This is a proposal, not law. It still has to be negotiated with the European Parliament and member states, and the final text can change a lot. But the direction is clear enough that product, UX, consent and marketing teams can start auditing now.

Where the Digital Fairness Act comes from

The Digital Fairness Act has been in preparation since the Commission’s 2024 fitness check of EU consumer law, which found that the existing directives still mattered but were only partly effective online. The Commission then ran a public consultation and call for evidence from July 17 to October 24, 2025. Its consultation page names the targets: deceptive or manipulative interface design, misleading influencer marketing, addictive design and unfair personalisation, “especially where consumer vulnerabilities are exploited,” with particular attention to minors. Consumer Commissioner Michael McGrath, who leads the file, has described it as both pro-consumer and pro-business, because it is also meant to simplify rules.

According to Euronews, the draft would repeal the 2005 Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and replace it with a regulation that applies directly in all 27 member states. That matters for compliance teams. A regulation removes much of the national variation that currently shapes how dark-pattern rules are enforced.

A correction on the fine: turnover, not profit

Some newsletter summaries said the draft fines reach “6% of a company’s global profits.” Reuters’ report says “as much as 6% of annual global turnover,” and Euronews and Contexte describe the cap the same way. The difference is large. Turnover means revenue, so a low-margin retailer or marketplace would face a ceiling many times bigger than a profit-based figure. Contexte’s summary links the 6% figure to a proposed reform of the Consumer Protection Cooperation framework, covering cases the Commission itself investigates. EU consumer law already requires national penalties of at least 4% of a trader’s annual turnover in the member states concerned for widespread cross-border infringements, so the draft would raise the ceiling and move some enforcement to Brussels.

Because the drafts are leaks, details such as which authority fines whom, and when, should be confirmed against the official proposal once the Commission publishes it. A Commission spokesperson told Euronews that it “does not comment on leaks.”

What the drafts would ban or require

Taken together, the reported drafts cover five areas that touch everyday product and marketing work.

• Blacklisted dark patterns. Euronews lists ten designs that would be unfair in all circumstances, so authorities would not need to prove harm case by case. They include making cancellation disproportionately harder than sign-up, hiding prices or auto-renewal terms, falsely implying there is no alternative, false claims about stock or popularity, repeated scarcity warnings during checkout, pre-selected add-ons, framing refusal as the wrong choice, repeatedly pressing users to change a choice already made, confusing double negatives and fake notifications. The Commission could add items later without going back to lawmakers.
• Pricing. Drip pricing, where unavoidable fees appear only at checkout, would be banned, along with “was/now” discounts calculated against a recommended retail price. Reuters says firms using dynamic pricing would have to disclose how many items are available at the advertised price.
• Minors. Paid loot boxes and pay-to-win mechanics would be banned for children, in-game currencies would have to show their real-money value, and advertising based on profiling minors would be prohibited for all traders, not only the large platforms covered by the Digital Services Act.
• Addictive design. Users would get the right to switch off features such as autoplay, notifications unrelated to their own activity, streak-style rewards and chatbots that simulate relationships.
• Subscriptions and service. Free trials could not roll into paid plans without active agreement, renewals would require reminders, online contracts would need a clear cancellation button, and customers would get a right to reach a human in customer service.

The reports are not fully consistent on personalised advertising. Reuters says the Commission wants to ban personalised ads targeting children or vulnerable consumers. EUobserver reads the draft more narrowly, saying personalised advertising and pricing would be banned only where harm is likely and the consumer is vulnerable, and that addictive features need only be switchable, not banned. Digital rights groups have criticised that softer approach, while Germany argued in an October non-paper, reported by Agence Europe, that existing directives should be amended rather than replaced. Expect this to be one of the most contested parts of the negotiation.

Why cookie and consent teams should care

The Digital Fairness Act is a consumer law, not a privacy law, but two blacklisted patterns describe familiar consent-banner problems. EUobserver reports that the draft forbids misleading choices about data sharing or cookies that present refusal as the wrong choice or use deliberately confusing language. Repeatedly asking users who have said no to reconsider is also on the list. Regulators already treat these as GDPR and ePrivacy issues. A consumer-law blacklist would give a second set of authorities a simpler legal route, with no need to prove the design distorted a particular decision.

If you have not reviewed your cookie consent design recently, start with button parity, wording on the reject option, how often you re-prompt after a refusal and whether “legitimate interest” toggles are pre-selected.

A practical audit list for UX, consent and marketing teams

None of this binds anyone yet, but most items on the list are already risky under existing EU and US law. US regulators have been pursuing the same patterns, as the Match Group FTC settlement over subscription design showed. A focused audit now will pay off whatever the final text says.

1. Map your sign-up and cancellation flows. Count the steps to subscribe and to cancel on every channel. If cancelling takes more effort, fix it. Teams selling in California will recognise this from the state’s automatic renewal law.
2. Inventory urgency and social-proof messages. List every “only 2 left,” “15 people are viewing” and countdown message, and check each against real data. Remove any that repeat throughout checkout.
3. Check pre-selected options. Find default-on insurance, donations, extra quantities and upsells in carts and booking flows.
4. Show the full price early. Make sure mandatory fees appear in the first price shown, and confirm reference prices in discount claims are your own prior prices.
5. Review consent prompts and re-prompts. Look for confirmshaming, double negatives, and nags that return after a user declines.
6. Identify features minors use. Flag loot boxes, virtual currencies, streaks and profiling-based ad targeting where children are likely users. The EDPB’s resources on GDPR and children are a useful companion for the data side.
7. Plan “off switches” for engagement features. Work out whether autoplay, non-activity notifications and companion-style chatbots can be turned off per user without breaking the product.
8. Document personalisation logic. If prices or offers vary by user, record the inputs and check whether any target vulnerability signals.

Games and in-app economies deserve a separate look. Consumer authorities have already swept the sector for manipulative tactics, as described in our report on the ICPEN sweep of gaming apps. Personalised pricing is drawing similar scrutiny in the US, where the FTC used its 6(b) orders on personalized pricing to study the practice.

What happens after November 11

Once the Commission adopts the proposal, it goes to the European Parliament and the Council under the ordinary legislative procedure. Committees will appoint rapporteurs, member states will set positions, and trilogue negotiations will follow. Major consumer files often take a year or more. If adopted in the form reported, the regulation would apply 12 months after entry into force, so realistic application dates are some way off. Watch for the official text, the impact assessment, which Euronews says estimates €88.4 billion in avoided consumer losses between 2025 and 2035, and early signals from Parliament on whether the personalised advertising and addictive design provisions get tougher or weaker.

Frequently asked questions

Is the Digital Fairness Act law now?

No. The Commission’s proposal starts the legislative process. Parliament and the Council must agree a final text, and drafts say it would then apply 12 months after entering into force.

Does it apply to companies outside the EU?

EU consumer law applies to traders dealing with consumers in the EU, wherever the trader is based. A US retailer or app selling to EU users should expect to be covered.

How does it relate to the Digital Services Act?

The DSA already bans dark patterns and profiling-based ads to minors on online platforms. The drafts would extend similar rules to all traders, including ordinary websites and apps that are not platforms.

Should we wait for the final text before changing anything?

Not for the core items. Hidden fees, fake scarcity and hard-to-cancel subscriptions are already challenged under existing EU and US rules, so fixing them reduces risk today.

Design reviews become legal reviews

For years, dark patterns were mostly argued case by case. The Digital Fairness Act drafts point to a different model: a written list of designs that are unfair by definition, backed by turnover-based fines. That makes interface decisions easier to audit and harder to defend. Teams that treat their checkout, cancellation and consent screens as compliance documents now will have far less to rebuild later.