€13.7 billion a year and an off switch for autoplay: Brussels proposes the Digital Fairness Act

The European Commission on Wednesday proposed the Digital Fairness Act, its answer to the small frictions of online life that add up to real money¹. Its own case is plain: around 60% of Europeans buy online, and online shoppers are over 60% more likely to run into problems than those buying in a shop¹. Consumer commissioner Michael McGrath called it, together with a reform of cross-border enforcement, “the most significant reform of EU consumer protection rules in more than 20 years”².

What is in it. A ban on “dark patterns” such as fake claims that a product is almost sold out; prices shown in real time, with the highest possible price, in virtual ticket queues; the option to turn off addictive features such as endless scrolling and autoplay; disclosure rules for influencers; limits on personalised ads and prices aimed at minors; and subscriptions that are easier to cancel, with reminders before free trials turn into paid ones^1,2. Children would be protected from loot boxes and pay-to-progress mechanics in games, and you would be able to reach a human rather than only a chatbot in customer service².

The invoice on both sides. The Commission’s impact assessment puts the annual benefit to consumers, including time lost, at €13.7 billion, against recurring costs to businesses of €678 million a year². Desk arithmetic: about €20 of benefit for every €1 of cost, on the Commission’s own numbers. In large cross-border cases, the enforcement reform would allow fines of up to 6% of global annual turnover, and non-EU companies would need a legal representative in the EU².

The objections are worth hearing. Bitkom, the German digital association, said the act “pursues the right goals” but would add obligations and red tape without decisively improving protection; its point is that existing rules should be enforced more consistently, including against sellers from outside the EU (our translation)³. The digital rights group EDRi argues the opposite worry: that the rules on addictive design still rely too much on you finding the off switch². Both are, at heart, arguments about enforcement and defaults. That is where a law succeeds or fails, long after the press conference.

For you. Nothing changes yet; this is a proposal, and it must pass Parliament and the member states². In the meantime the cheapest protection is already yours: put the end date of every free trial in your calendar the day you start it.