The EU's Digital Fairness Act: what the November 11 proposal means for brands

The European Commission proposed the Digital Fairness Act on November 11, 2026. It's a regulation that would replace the EU's Unfair Commercial Practices Directive from 2005 and apply the same rules directly in every member state, according to the Commission's announcement and its Questions and answers.

For a brand selling on Amazon's European stores, its own site or social commerce, three parts of the draft matter most. It would ban fake scarcity and other dark patterns outright. It would make companies that use influencer marketing responsible for making sure their influencers disclose the deal. And it would require AI shopping agents to tell the shopper when someone paid for what they're proposing.

It isn't law yet. The European Parliament and the Council of the EU now negotiate the text, and the draft says it would apply 12 months after it enters into force. That gives brands time, but not much of it, given how long it takes to change creator contracts and product page copy across a catalog.

Key facts#

What the European Commission proposed on November 11, 2026#

The Digital Fairness Act is a proposed EU regulation that updates consumer protection rules for online selling, so that, in the Commission's words, consumers "enjoy the same high level of protection online as they do offline." The Commission published it with two companion proposals: a revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation, which handles enforcement, and a directive amending the Consumer Rights Directive to simplify some pre-contractual information rules.

Michael McGrath, the European Commissioner for Democracy, Justice, the Rule of Law and Consumer Protection, called it "the most ambitious reform of EU consumer protection rules in a generation." The Commission estimates the package would save EU consumers up to €13.7 billion a year.

Which dark patterns would the Digital Fairness Act ban?#

The Digital Fairness Act adds a list of dark patterns, interface designs that push shoppers into decisions they wouldn't otherwise make, that are banned in all circumstances. The Commission's Questions and Answers gives three examples:

• Fake claims that a product is running out, such as "Only 1 left" or "5 other customers are interested in this!"
• Shaming shoppers for saying no, such as an unsubscribe button labeled "I don't like good deals."
• Defaults the shopper has to reject, such as pre-ticked boxes or extra items added to the basket automatically.

The draft also bans drip pricing. The Q&A says companies "will have to show the full price from the start, including additional fees, taxes, and charges." For subscriptions, it requires a reminder before a free trial converts to paid or a contract renews automatically, active confirmation before a trial becomes a paid contract, an online cancellation option and access to a human in customer service when problems arise in an ongoing contract and other means aren't effective.

Scarcity claims don't have to be false to be caught. Annex I of the draft also lists "persistently displaying statements throughout the ordering process about the availability or popularity of a product or promotional offer to create an impression of scarcity." A low-stock line that's true but shown on every step of checkout could fall inside that. The final text will decide where the line sits.

How the Digital Fairness Act treats influencer marketing#

Under Article 11 of the proposed Digital Fairness Act, an influencer has to disclose the commercial intent of each paid post "through the terms 'advertisement' or 'commercial collaboration'". On a platform covered by the Digital Services Act, that disclosure would use the platform's own tool for declaring commercial content.

The part brands need to read is Article 11(6): "Any trader using influencer marketing services shall ensure contractually, or in the absence of a contract through other appropriate means, that the trader carrying out influencer marketing complies with the provisions of this Regulation." The Commission's Q&A puts it more plainly: "Brands and agencies will have to ensure that influencers comply with their obligations." The draft also bars influencer promotion of products that can't legally be advertised or are unsafe, and of products presented as suitable for minors when they aren't.

If you run creator programs that send traffic to Amazon listings, with gifted product or affiliate links, the brand's side of that relationship is what this article reaches.

What the Digital Fairness Act says about AI shopping agents#

Article 26 of the proposed Digital Fairness Act covers "automated systems for contracting on behalf of a consumer", which in practice means AI agents that can buy things. On first use, the shopper would have to choose whether to confirm every purchase, only purchases matching criteria they set (including a maximum price) or none.

Article 26(4)(b) is the one for advertisers. The agent "shall disclose any payment received" for proposing a contract, and any conflict of interest with the seller, and in that case must ask the shopper to confirm the purchase regardless of the settings they chose. A sponsored pick inside a buying agent couldn't go straight through to checkout unannounced.

This lands as ads reach shopping assistants. We covered Digiday's reporting on sponsored replies in Alexa for Shopping on November 7, 2026, and Amazon's decision to block outside AI shopping agents on November 4, 2026. The draft doesn't name Amazon or any company, and whether a given assistant counts as a system that concludes contracts on the shopper's behalf is a question for the final text and its enforcement.

Who would enforce the Digital Fairness Act, and how big are the fines?#

The proposed revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation would give the European Commission direct power to investigate and fine companies up to 6% of worldwide annual turnover. According to the Q&A, the Commission could step in when a breach is likely to affect consumers in at least two-thirds of EU member states representing at least two-thirds of the EU population, and only against companies that aren't small or medium-sized enterprises.

Two more points matter for US brands. National consumer authorities would keep their enforcement role outside the cases the Commission takes, with faster cross-border procedures. And non-EU companies would have to appoint a legal representative in the EU to cooperate with national authorities and the Commission.

Maximum fine, share of worldwide annual turnover

6%Maximum fine, share of worldwide annual turnoverProposed Commission power in large cross-border cases

Annual EU consumer savings the Commission projects

€13.7BAnnual EU consumer savings the Commission projectsPer the November 11, 2026 announcement

Time from entry into force to application

12 monthsTime from entry into force to applicationArticle 40 of the draft, still bracketed

Our read: fix the copy and the contracts before the deadline is set#

Sell Through's read is that most of the Digital Fairness Act changes what brands already shouldn't be doing rather than inventing new duties. The Commission's Q&A describes the dark pattern rules as clarifying what EU consumer law already bans. What changes is that the rules become one regulation across the EU, the Commission gets its own enforcement power, and any company using influencer marketing services is made responsible for its influencers' compliance.

Three things we'd pay attention to as the text moves through Parliament and the Council:

Creator contracts. Article 11(6) is a contracting obligation. Brands with creator programs in Germany, France, Italy, Spain or any other EU market will need disclosure terms in every agreement and a way to show they checked. That's easier to build into a template now than to retrofit across hundreds of creators later.

Urgency language in content you control. A+ Content, brand store copy, email and your own site are yours. Marketplace-generated stock and deal badges aren't. Know which is which before anyone asks.

Sponsored placements in agents. If paid recommendations inside buying agents have to be disclosed and confirmed in the EU, the value of a sponsored slot in an assistant may differ between the US and Europe. We'd plan agent-based ad tests market by market rather than assuming one approach travels.

None of this is legal advice, and the text will change. Put the specific questions to your EU counsel. We handle the listing, content and brand-protection side of this in our channel control and brand protection work, and creator traffic to Amazon is part of how we plan Amazon accounts.

What to do this week#