Europe

EU draft targets hidden influencer ads and manipulative app design

A leaked draft of the European Commission’s Digital Fairness Act would require influencers to label paid promotions clearly and ban several online design tactics that steer consumers toward choices benefiting companies. Digital rights advocates welcomed binding rules but said the proposal leaves gaps, including on addictive features such as autoplay and infinite scrolling.

EU draft targets hidden influencer ads and manipulative app design

The Commission is due to unveil the proposal on Wednesday (11 November), according to the source. The draft, seen by EUobserver, would require sponsorships to be prominently identified with terms such as “advertisement” or “commercial collaboration”; influencers could not present paid promotions as personal endorsements. The proposal follows a 2022 Commission study that found dark patterns on 97 percent of the most popular websites and apps used by consumers. These are design choices intended to push users toward options that are more profitable for companies.

The draft would also ban misrepresenting product information and fake notifications suggesting that someone had sent a message. It would prohibit misleading cookie and data-sharing choices that frame refusal as the wrong option or use deliberately confusing wording, and require online subscriptions to be easy to cancel. “If someone is promoting products on social media, it should be clearly stated,” said Agustín Reyna, director general of consumer rights body BEUC. He also cited complex cancellation processes, opaque ticket prices and “low stock” warnings as practices that leave consumers frustrated.

Addictive features remain outside a blanket ban

The draft would restrict personalised advertising and pricing only when they are likely to cause harm and the consumer is vulnerable. It would not ban features such as autoplay or infinite scrolling, requiring users to switch them off instead. Itxaso Domínguez de Olazábal, senior policy advisor at rights watchdog EDRi, said that approach could mean uncertainty and lengthy case-by-case assessments. “Offering an opt-out should not automatically be considered sufficient,” she said.

She nevertheless called the proposal a “significant step,” pointing to binding rules against manipulative design, fake message notifications, repeated pressure to reverse choices and deliberately complicated refusal mechanisms.

Comments

Comments (0)

Leave a comment

No comments yet. Be the first!