Our Public Policy Director, Inés Talavera de la Esperanza, shares her thoughts on the Commission's newly published Consumer Agenda for 2025-2030.
Today, the European Commission published its long-awaited Consumer Agenda for 2025–2030 - and with it, confirmed the preparation of the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) . This proposed new regulation, coming at a time when Commission President Ursula von der Leyen has prioritised and EU leaders have demanded simplification and regulatory restraint to foster competitiveness and growth in the European Union. This raises a crucial question: How will this push for new consumer protection rules align with the promise to simplify the EU’s regulatory landscape?
The EU’s prosperity depends on ensuring that rules are proportionate, targeted and do not overburden businesses, especially small and medium enterprises. This is particularly true for the digital advertising sector, which Executive Vice-President Ribera called "the backbone of the online economy".
And yet, at the same time, the Commission is preparing a Digital Fairness Act (DFA) that seems poised to introduce new layers of regulation to an already crowded, complex and recent rulebook.
The Commission is trying to reassure digital businesses by promoting the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) under the banner of “filling gaps” and “simplifying rules for businesses in the EU.” Yet few in the digital economy would describe additional rules coming as part of a DFA as “simplification”
The paradox is striking. Europe’s digital advertising ecosystem is already heavily regulated by data protection, consumer, and digital laws.
Take, for instance, the issue of so-called “dark patterns” and “click fatigue.” The Commission raised this topic in its recent public consultation on the potential Digital Fairness Act. Specifically, when talking about cookie banners, it’s a legitimate user experience issue — but not a consumer protection problem. It’s a question of data protection compliance under the GDPR and ePrivacy rules.
National Data Protection Authorities have already issued divergent guidance on this, leading to a patchwork of interpretations across Member States. Adding a new consumer-law layer would only deepen that fragmentation.
If simplification is truly the goal, the answer lies not in new rules but in better coordination among existing ones. This should be addressed during existing simplification workstreams, such as the Omnibus packages.
Another emerging idea in the DFA consultation is to regulate targeted advertising based on a consumer’s “vulnerability” - for instance, “negative mental states.” In practice, it raises serious technical and legal challenges. Detecting such states in real time is in tension with data protection rules as it would require collecting and processing sensitive personal data - information about an individual’s financial situation or health - that are endowed with special protection under the GDPR.
If individuals don’t give explicit consent to process this type of data, companies cannot lawfully identify if they have vulnerabilities. The result? An idea that is impossible to comply with, resulting in a de facto ban on personalised advertising.
Another area where a DFA would reinvent the wheel is influencer marketing. The Commission has included the possibility of tackling harmful practices under the initiative. However, a wealth of EU and national-level industry-led initiatives, such as AdEthics, which has been endorsed by Justice Commissioner McGrath, are working effectively to promote responsible behaviour online across the EU. Again, the real challenge is not a lack of regulation, but ensuring consistent enforcement and awareness of what already exists - and supporting the effective industry-led initiatives.
DG JUST’s consumer strategy, and the future Digital Fairness Act risk departing from the simplification principle guiding the second von der Leyen Commission. With the EU27 asking the Commission to demonstrate regulatory self-restraint, the DFA” will serve as an early indicator of whether that commitment is genuine. Simplification must mean simplification, i.e. fewer, clearer, and coherent rules.
For more information on our policy work and how you can get involved, visit our Policy Hub.
