Digital Fairness Act: the EU turns its unfair-practices blacklist into a regulation, with fines up to 6% of turnover

On 11 November 2026 the European Commission adopted its proposal for a Digital Fairness Act, together with a Simplification Directive and a revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation. The Commission calls the package the most significant upgrade of EU consumer protection legislation in over 20 years.

It is a proposal. It now goes to the European Parliament and the Council, and the text will change. But its structure tells businesses — including iGaming operators and the brands we protect — where EU consumer law is heading.

From directive to regulation

The proposal (COM(2026) 1100) repeals the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive of 2005 and replaces it with a regulation that applies directly in every member state, 12 months after it enters into force. The general ban on unfair practices, the rules on misleading and aggressive practices, and the blacklist of practices unfair in all circumstances are carried over; the difference is that there would be one text instead of 27 national transpositions.

What is new

• Dark patterns. Designing an online interface in a way likely to materially distort consumers’ economic behaviour is prohibited, and a list of dark patterns banned in all circumstances is added to the blacklist, which the Commission may update by delegated act.
• Spending design. Prices expressed in virtual currencies must be transparent. Variable reward systems — the proposal names loot boxes, wheels of fortune and card packs, noting they “share the speculative features of gambling” — must disclose the probability of winning, can be switched off by any consumer, and are prohibited towards minors. Pay-to-win and pay-to-progress mechanisms are prohibited for minors.
• Influencer marketing. New obligations for marketing by social media influencers. The recitals specifically mention influencers promoting harmful products such as speculative instruments, betting, lotteries and other gambling.
• Personalisation. Personalised pricing based on profiling is prohibited where it could harm minors or vulnerable consumers.
• Evidence. Courts and authorities could order a trader, on a plausible claim of an unfair online practice, to produce evidence on how the practice is designed, how it works and how it affects consumers.

The proposal leaves national gambling regulation untouched: rules on authorisation regimes, including those relating to gambling, are expressly preserved.

Fines

Under the proposal, member states must set a maximum fine of at least 4% of the trader’s annual turnover in the countries concerned for widespread infringements handled through coordinated EU enforcement. In cases the Commission investigates itself under the revised CPC Regulation, it could impose fines of up to 6% of worldwide annual turnover. The Commission’s factsheet adds that non-EU businesses targeting EU consumers will have to appoint a representative in the EU.

What this means for you

For iGaming operators, the direct exposure is in product design and marketing: bonus and engagement mechanics that look like dark patterns, gamified spending features, and influencer and streamer campaigns. The gambling licence regime itself is not displaced, but the way a licensed product is presented to consumers would be judged against a single EU standard.

For brand owners fighting clones and impersonators, the more useful part is the blacklist the regulation carries over. Annex I already treats as unfair in all circumstances, among others:

• claiming that a trader or product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when it has not;
• promoting a product similar to a particular manufacturer’s in a way deliberately designed to make consumers believe it comes from that manufacturer;
• claiming that products can help consumers win games of chance;
• submitting or commissioning fake consumer reviews.

That is a close description of what clone casinos, fake “official” apps and “predictor” or “signal” products for crash games actually say. Those rules exist today, but in 27 national forms with uneven enforcement. As a regulation, with turnover-based fines and an EU-level enforcer for widespread cases, they would carry more weight — including in complaints to consumer authorities, platforms and payment providers.

Two caveats. Consumer-law enforcement is in the hands of authorities and, depending on national law, consumer and business organisations; the regulation does not hand brand owners a new private cause of action. And nothing applies until the text is adopted, published and a year has passed.