With the European Commission’s (the Commission) public consultation on its planned Digital Fairness Act (DFA) now closed, policymakers in Brussels are digesting feedback from thousands of stakeholders. After analyzing the potential impact for content creators and game developers, the third blog of our mini-series focuses on the potential impact of the proposed DFA on e-commerce players.
For businesses selling online, this would represent another important development in a regulatory landscape that has already evolved significantly in recent years through the Modernisation Directive, the General Product Safety Regulation, the Digital Services Act (DSA), targeted amendments to the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and the Consumer Rights Directive. Rules in this area are frequently new, updated, or under review, which can create practical challenges for businesses working to implement them effectively. Upcoming initiatives such as the Digital Omnibus (see more here) and the Digital Fitness Check will further refine the framework. As these discussions progress, ensuring that the evaluation of the digital rulebook is well aligned with parallel initiatives, such as a potential DFA, will help maintain a clear and coherent framework for businesses and consumers.
Looking ahead, the e-commerce sector is undergoing a transformation, moving beyond traditional digital shopping to experiences such as live shopping, AI-driven recommendations, social commerce, and immersive commerce. These innovations have the potential to boost economic growth, expand consumer choice, and stimulate Europe’s digital economy, provided they are supported by clear, principles-based legislation that can adapt to diverse business models while offering legal certainty. By creating a framework that is both future-proof and innovation-friendly, policymakers can help ensure that new digital experiences flourish in a way that benefits consumers, businesses and the broader economy.
Below, we explore the key themes emerging from the policy debate, which regulatory changes may be on the table, and how e-commerce businesses can prepare.
A diverse e-commerce sector
Not all e-commerce businesses operate the same way. The sector includes large third-party marketplaces, direct-to-consumer brands, hybrid setups, subscription-based services, and varying degrees of personalization and customization. Each model has unique commercial dynamics and compliance challenges. In this post, we focus on regulatory themes likely to impact the sector as a whole.
From deceptive patterns to fair design
A major pillar of the potential DFA is on deceptive interface design or the so-called “dark patterns” that distort consumer choice. While we already analyzed the Digital Fairness Fitness Check conclusions regarding these practices and moreover, how they are already addressed in different pieces of existing EU legislation (see blog here), these can include:
- Countdown timers creating false urgency
- Drip pricing, where the complete fees are revealed only at checkout
- Pre-ticked consent boxes or bundled services
- Misleading “limited stock” or “flash sale” claims
The Commission aims to codify or expand existing guidance under the UCPD into more detailed obligations for online retailers, building on rules under the DSA addressing manipulative or opaque interfaces. This could, however, add complexity to compliance.
Implications for e-commerce can include:
- Websites and apps may need to redesign purchase flows to ensure full transparency on pricing, delivery, and consent
- Websites and apps may need to redesign user interfaces and product pages to meet deceptive design requirements
- Legitimate marketing practices such as temporary sales or promotional prices could be restricted or banned outright
- Retailers using behavioral analytics may need to demonstrate that personalization does not exploit consumer vulnerabilities
It will be important for stakeholders to remain engaged as discussions on a potential DFA move forward. While the objective of addressing deceptive interface design is widely recognized, several practical questions will need careful consideration. For example, how should the distinction be drawn between a legitimate short-term price promotion and practices that may create undue urgency? Similarly, how can legislators ensure clarity and coherence in the framework so that new obligations complement the existing rules in this area?
Data, algorithms, and personalized advertising
Personalized advertisements and algorithmic recommendations are now deeply embedded in online commerce, and the DFA is expected to focus on these practices. Existing EU rules, such as the DSA, already include transparency obligations, for instance, requiring Very Large Online Platforms to offer recommender systems that do not rely on profiling. Beyond these measures, there is broad political interest in increasing transparency around algorithmic decision-making, particularly where consumers may be shown different prices or products based on their data.
Although personalization is already addressed by multiple pieces of legislation (see more here), a potential DFA could introduce additional obligations for e-commerce businesses, including new requirements alongside the GDPR, DSA, UCPD, and others. However, under a possible DFA, e-commerce businesses may face new obligations to:
- Explicitly disclose when prices are personalized and on what basis
- Clarify when rankings or recommendations are influenced by commercial relationships (sponsorships, commissions, or paid placements)
- Provide simple explanations of how recommendation systems work and ensure consumers can opt out of personalized offers.
Retailers that use data-driven pricing or recommendation systems may need to assess their algorithms to ensure transparency and compliance. Personalized recommendations and advertising are widely used to help businesses, including SMEs, reach relevant audiences and operate competitively. These practices also illustrate the complexity of the current legal landscape, where rules on online advertising and personalization are spread across multiple instruments, highlighting the potential value of clarifying and aligning existing frameworks. While the DFA could introduce additional rules, it remains uncertain how much further benefit such regulation would provide beyond the protections already established. Privacy-enhancing technologies (PETs) are among the tools that can support responsible data use within this context.
Personalized pricing
E-commerce platforms increasingly rely on dynamic and personalized pricing to stay competitive, but the upcoming DFA could put certain practices under closer scrutiny. Techniques like “drip” pricing, where additional fees appear late in the checkout process, “starting from” prices, and misleading percentage or value discounts may attract regulatory attention. While these methods can optimize sales and pricing strategies, platforms need to ensure they remain fully transparent to avoid potential compliance issues.
Existing EU consumer protection rules already provide a framework. The UCPD ensures that consumers can make informed purchasing decisions based on value and quality, while the Price Indication Directive helps shoppers compare prices across retailers. Certain behaviors—such as revealing total costs only at the last step or charging “collect at store” fees—have been flagged as potential “dark patterns,” meaning platforms must carefully consider how costs are presented.
Personalized pricing adds another layer of complexity. Offering tailored discounts or price advantages based on past purchases or browsing behavior is allowed, but Article 6(1)(d) UCPD requires transparency: consumers should be enabled to clearly understand how their prices are calculated and what advantages are being applied. For platforms, this means balancing advanced pricing strategies with clear, easy-to-understand disclosures that maintain trust and avoid regulatory pitfalls.
Digital contracts and subscriptions
Online subscriptions have become a standard way for consumers to access digital services, which explains why they have come under closer scrutiny in the context of the DFA. Regulators are considering whether additional requirements are needed to address concerns about complex cancellation processes, unclear renewal terms, and free trials that transition into paid subscriptions without sufficient transparency. If taken forward, such measures could include clearer renewal information, more standardized cancellation pathways, or explicit consent when a trial becomes a paid plan.
At the same time, it remains an open question whether new rules are necessary in light of the existing consumer protection framework (see here our blogpost on how existing rules apply to contract cancellations and digital subscriptions), which already prohibits misleading practices and requires key contractual information to be disclosed.
What comes next
The Commission will spend the coming months analyzing stakeholder feedback and preparing its proposal for Q4 2026, and is expected to publish a so-called impact assessment with various scenarios towards Q2 2026.
What you can do now
1. Stay involved – The deadline for submissions to the public consultation has lapsed, but it is never too late to make your voice heard: Engage with the European Commission to stay on top of the latest developments on this initiative and express your views.
2. See existing scope – Explore our EU Digital Fairness Dashboard (request access here) to get an overview of the current legal framework and how it already regulates interface designs.
3. Seek perspectives – To gain a broader understanding of how the DFA could impact other stakeholders across the digital ecosystem, explore other blogposts in this short series, including our Creator’s Guide or our Game Developer’s Guide to potential impacts of the proposed DFA.
Stay tuned for the next analysis in this series!
