Diana Năsulea & Christian Năsulea // 15 October 2025

The European Commission’s proposed Digital Fairness Act (DFA) seeks to strengthen consumer protection in online markets by addressing manipulative design practices, deceptive personalisation, and opaque influencer marketing. However, Digital Fairness Without Red Tape: Designing Smarter EU Consumer Protection warns that the Act could add unnecessary complexity to an already dense regulatory framework, creating overlapping obligations and imposing disproportionate burdens on small and medium-sized enterprises.

The authors, Diana Năsulea and Christian Năsulea, analyse the Commission’s initiative and argues that while its objectives are well-intentioned, the DFA risks undermining innovation, competitiveness, and legal clarity. The authors call for a more proportionate, evidence-based approach that strengthens enforcement of existing laws rather than layering on new red tape.

The main findings of the briefing include:

• The Digital Fairness Act (DFA), within the EU’s Digital Decade strategy, aims to bolster consumer protection in online markets by targeting manipulative practices like dark patterns and opaque personalisation, addressing gaps in GDPR, DSA, DMA, and UCPD.

• The DFA risks overcomplicating the EU’s dense regulatory framework, potentially causing legal uncertainty, undermining enforcement, and adding complexity for businesses due to overlapping obligations.

• SMEs face disproportionate compliance burdens, which could favour large incumbents, reduce market diversity, and hinder start-ups, impacting the dynamism of the European digital ecosystem.

• Overly rigid rules may deter investment, delay digital service rollouts, and widen the EU’s competitiveness gap, particularly given challenges in scaling digital businesses.

• The DFA must target specific gaps with proportionate requirements, especially for SMEs, using clear, research-based definitions of terms like ‘dark patterns’ to avoid capturing legitimate practices.

• Stronger enforcement and coordination among existing authorities, rather than new regimes, would improve efficiency and clarity in implementing the DFA.

• Issues like game licensing and digital shutdowns may be covered by existing laws (CRD, UCTD, UCPD), with gaps lying in enforcement clarity, not new legislation.

• A review or sunset clause would ensure the DFA remains adaptable, evidence based, and responsive to technological change, preventing it from stifling innovation.