Openly accessible structured information

Claims, sources and citations

Selected regulatory statements and implementation interpretations, with source references and explicit limits. Each record carries only the current statement. Coverage is selective, not a complete statement of the law.

General information only. A pattern label is not a finding of unlawfulness. A stored review date describes the recorded source baseline, not a new personal or legal review. Check later official material before relying on a time-sensitive statement.

Download and scope

The catalogue covers 6 selected statements for digital-fairness-act.eu. Existing pattern datasets cover the broader learning taxonomy separately. Selection is not a complete legal inventory.

Status and updates · Journey evidence worksheet · Research explained

How to read a record

Each stable claim ID has a revision derived from the complete record. A changed hash identifies different content, not legal correctness. Sources have their own IDs, publisher, document type and retrieval dates. Evidence references distinguish support, qualification and contradiction. Each record holds only the current statement; superseded wording is not published.

datePublished: Recorded first publication of the underlying portal content, when known.
dateModified: Recorded substantive content version, never the build time.
recordedAt: Date the claim was entered into this catalogue; not its first publication or legal review.
baselineReviewedAt: Inherited editorial source-review record. Does not identify a personal reviewer.
accessedDate: Source retrieval recorded in the source register; no implication of legal correctness.
sourceCheckedAt: A recorded source-content comparison, not a legal or personal review.
effectiveFrom: Statutory commencement only where supported by the cited provision.

Legal status and editorial verification are separate. The inherited baseline has no named personal reviewer. Technical source checks, author attribution and a documented human review are different records.

Selected statements

What is the Digital Fairness Act?

The Digital Fairness Act is a European Commission legislative initiative intended to address gaps and enforcement challenges in digital consumer protection. It is not currently a standalone applicable Act. Existing EU law already covers parts of interface design, commercial practice, contracts and data use; the proposal’s exact scope, duties, enforcement model and dates remain subject to the legislative process.

Official announcement · Officially announced

Earlier source baseline: 2026-08-09. Source comparison: 2026-09-14. Automated source-content comparison. This source comparison checked the initiative record, institutional timetable and research classification behind the learning material. Several EUR-Lex full texts could not be retrieved. Detailed provision mappings retain that verification limit; this is not a fresh legal opinion or a determination about any interface.

Evidence, limits and citation for eu-dfa-status

Review of EU consumer law. supports: Digital Fairness Act initiative; 2026 Work Programme Annex I, Digital Fairness Act
Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
Commission work programme 2026: Europe's Independence Moment. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.

General information only. A pattern label is not a finding of unlawfulness. A stored review date describes the recorded source baseline, not a new personal or legal review. Check later official material before relying on a time-sensitive statement.
Later legislative text, final duties and application dates require a fresh scoped source review.

Revision: eu-dfa-status@98a9e4d7a4df24628c7762ed924329b5fb8b8c37dfd5fc179766be4a1f8b0da1

What is the Digital Fairness Act?. Editorial responsibility: Tobias Reittinger. digital-fairness-act.eu. Claim eu-dfa-status, revision eu-dfa-status@98a9e4d7a4df24628c7762ed924329b5fb8b8c37dfd5fc179766be4a1f8b0da1. Recorded 2026-09-14. Canonical statement.

Addictive design and digital engagement

Addictive design describes product mechanics that may encourage repetitive or prolonged use, including variable rewards, infinite feeds and interruption of stopping cues. It is broader than a single dark-pattern label and is not automatically unlawful. Teams should examine audience, intensity, control, foreseeable harm and current sector rules while tracking what future DFA text actually proposes.

Implementation interpretation · Under consideration

Earlier source baseline: 2026-08-09. Source comparison: 2026-09-14. 14 September comparison added current institutional context. Several underlying EUR-Lex provision texts could not be retrieved, so the detailed legal mapping retains its earlier baseline. No new full-text or personal legal review is claimed.

Evidence, limits and citation for eu-addictive-design

Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment. supports: Call for evidence, problem definition and possible measures; DSA Articles 25, 34 and 35
Digital Services Act. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
Artificial Intelligence Act. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.

General information only. A pattern label is not a finding of unlawfulness. A stored review date describes the recorded source baseline, not a new personal or legal review. Check later official material before relying on a time-sensitive statement.
Later legislative text, final duties and application dates require a fresh scoped source review.

Revision: eu-addictive-design@0bbf252f835d0a360d54d9cad95876202bb8fa1b29cc60d2fd21115f89b01550

Addictive design and digital engagement. Editorial responsibility: Tobias Reittinger. digital-fairness-act.eu. Claim eu-addictive-design, revision eu-addictive-design@0bbf252f835d0a360d54d9cad95876202bb8fa1b29cc60d2fd21115f89b01550. Recorded 2026-09-14. Canonical statement.

Personalisation and pricing

Personalisation can order content, tailor offers or vary prices using user or context signals. These practices are not one legal category. Current EU rules can require transparency, lawful data processing and fair commercial presentation in specific circumstances. Teams should document inputs, purpose, price logic and user impact while avoiding claims that the announced DFA has already prohibited personalised journeys.

Implementation interpretation · Under consideration

Evidence, limits and citation for eu-personalisation

Consumer Rights Directive. supports: CRD Article 6(1)(ea); GDPR Articles 5 and 6; DFA call for evidence
General Data Protection Regulation. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.

General information only. A pattern label is not a finding of unlawfulness. A stored review date describes the recorded source baseline, not a new personal or legal review. Check later official material before relying on a time-sensitive statement.
Later legislative text, final duties and application dates require a fresh scoped source review.

Revision: eu-personalisation@d36c5fb54acb7a1596f7afbe2c71fbe2a5fcee8bd4834397d482ef65582caa5a

Personalisation and pricing. Editorial responsibility: Tobias Reittinger. digital-fairness-act.eu. Claim eu-personalisation, revision eu-personalisation@d36c5fb54acb7a1596f7afbe2c71fbe2a5fcee8bd4834397d482ef65582caa5a. Recorded 2026-09-14. Canonical statement.

Influencer marketing disclosure

Influencer marketing can be a commercial practice when content promotes products or services. Existing EU consumer and audiovisual rules already address hidden commercial intent and advertising disclosure in relevant circumstances. The operational task is to identify the commercial relationship, make disclosure clear at first exposure and retain campaign evidence, not to wait for a future DFA rule.

Legal fact · Current law

Evidence, limits and citation for eu-influencer-disclosure

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. supports: UCPD Article 7(2), Annex I points 11 and 22; AVMSD Article 9
Audiovisual Media Services Directive. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.

General information only. A pattern label is not a finding of unlawfulness. A stored review date describes the recorded source baseline, not a new personal or legal review. Check later official material before relying on a time-sensitive statement.
Later legislative text, final duties and application dates require a fresh scoped source review.

Revision: eu-influencer-disclosure@f5423f9c266cfac855dabfba93f1c925cc40f60625c12e47debbdc41ac29a4dd

Influencer marketing disclosure. Editorial responsibility: Tobias Reittinger. digital-fairness-act.eu. Claim eu-influencer-disclosure, revision eu-influencer-disclosure@f5423f9c266cfac855dabfba93f1c925cc40f60625c12e47debbdc41ac29a4dd. Recorded 2026-09-14. Canonical statement.

Subscriptions and digital contracts

Subscription journeys combine offer presentation, pre-contract information, consent to payment, renewal, account control and termination. Current EU consumer and contract rules already govern several of these stages. The announced DFA may address identified digital problems, but no team should treat a possible reminder, button or cancellation requirement as final until supported by published legal text.

Implementation interpretation · Current law

Evidence, limits and citation for eu-subscriptions

Consumer Rights Directive. supports: CRD Articles 6 and 8; UCTD Articles 3 to 6
Unfair Contract Terms Directive. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
Consumer Rights Directive: amendments and application dates. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
Requirement for online stores to offer a statutory withdrawal function in June 2026. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
Digital Fairness Act: call for evidence for an impact assessment. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.

General information only. A pattern label is not a finding of unlawfulness. A stored review date describes the recorded source baseline, not a new personal or legal review. Check later official material before relying on a time-sensitive statement.
Later legislative text, final duties and application dates require a fresh scoped source review.

Revision: eu-subscriptions@d5ce00f71fa393529b34c010f631e8c4dbd90cc74586e226a4a40b91280825c2

Subscriptions and digital contracts. Editorial responsibility: Tobias Reittinger. digital-fairness-act.eu. Claim eu-subscriptions, revision eu-subscriptions@d5ce00f71fa393529b34c010f631e8c4dbd90cc74586e226a4a40b91280825c2. Recorded 2026-09-14. Canonical statement.

Minors and vulnerable consumers

Age, disability, financial stress, limited digital literacy and situational pressure can change how an interface affects a consumer. EU instruments use different vulnerability concepts and scopes; there is no single universal checklist. Teams should identify foreseeable audiences, test comprehension and control, apply relevant child-specific safeguards and document how risk changes across the journey.

Implementation interpretation · Current law

Evidence, limits and citation for eu-vulnerable-consumers

Unfair Commercial Practices Directive. supports: UCPD Article 5(3); DSA Article 28; GDPR Article 8
Digital Services Act. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.
General Data Protection Regulation. qualifies: Context and qualifications in the linked source; see the article source list.

General information only. A pattern label is not a finding of unlawfulness. A stored review date describes the recorded source baseline, not a new personal or legal review. Check later official material before relying on a time-sensitive statement.
Later legislative text, final duties and application dates require a fresh scoped source review.

Revision: eu-vulnerable-consumers@fedbdecf8ee3ec785512e9015620c34727398a7d3c1876e698684d30b33077bb

Minors and vulnerable consumers. Editorial responsibility: Tobias Reittinger. digital-fairness-act.eu. Claim eu-vulnerable-consumers, revision eu-vulnerable-consumers@fedbdecf8ee3ec785512e9015620c34727398a7d3c1876e698684d30b33077bb. Recorded 2026-09-14. Canonical statement.

Reuse and corrections

These files contain portal summaries and links, not a mirror of the cited documents. Access does not grant a new licence to third-party works or all portal content. Existing rights remain with their holders. Cite the claim ID, revision and canonical page; consult the original source for authoritative wording.

Report a correction with the claim ID and source passage. Browse the source register.