Diaarinumero KKV/854/03.05/2025
Implementation Dialogue on consumer law in the digital environment (15 July 2025)
Expert Opinion on the Future of Consumer Protection in the EU
The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority (FCCA) supports the European Commission’s commitment to a just transition towards a clean, digital, and socially responsible economy. We advocate for a balanced approach in the upcoming Consumer Agenda (2025-2030) that ensures a high level of consumer protection while avoiding excessive burdens on businesses.
The justifications for maintaining robust horizontal consumer law are strong. Consumer protection is essential, because consumers as humans are in a weaker position compared to businesses, particularly in the digital landscape. Protecting consumers’ economic interests is fundamental to the EU’s horizontal consumer law.
Consumer rights are crucial for enhancing market functionality, as they foster consumer trust and participation. It is important to note that consumer law should not be conflated with competition law. A level playing field for businesses is achieved through the interplay of competition law, consumer law, and emerging digital legislation.
Social fairness plays a vital role in facilitating market access for consumers, especially for vulnerable groups. While all consumers may experience vulnerability from time to time, certain groups, such as minors, are particularly susceptible to exploitative market practices. The evolution of EU consumer policy reflects both consumer welfare and consumer well-being, as evidenced by ongoing discussions around ’addictive design’ that encompass both economic and mental health concerns.
The Merits of Horizontal Consumer Law
As horizontal consumer law is vital for preventing unfair commercial practices and contract terms, FCCA sees only a very limited scope for simplification.
The horizontal consumer law operates from an ex post basis and emphasizes enforcement. It does not impose such reporting, surveillance, verification, etc. duties for businesses as does the supervision of other ex ante rules.
The digital environment is generally well-served by a general principlesbased approach. As the Acquis evolves to meet the demands of digital markets, the flexibility of rules is paramount. While specific regulations can be beneficial, they may not always be the most effective solution given the rapid pace of marketing innovation.
For example the general clauses of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) have empowered the FCCA to take enforcement actions against online platforms, digital services and digitalization of goods and services that deviate from consumer law requirements. Innovative legal practices are essential for addressing problematic digital practices without necessitating constant regulatory updates.
The rapid pace of cumulative regulatory changes, not only within EU consumer legislation but also in parallel digital and data regulations, risks the legislation’s ability to deliver stability and legal certainty. The horizontal consumer law is designed to be technology-neutral, applying consistently across both online and offline contexts to ensure uniform consumer protection across sectors
The digital legislation is complimentary and gives prevalence to the EU consumer law, but it remains to be seen what this means in practice. The critical question is whether the overall legal framework effectively ensures a high level of consumer protection.
Optimization for Achieving Digital Fairness
Consumers are asking for less dependency-inducting design features and lock-in effects and more respect for human dignity and freedom of choice. FCCA recommends addressing the growing digital asymmetry between consumers and businesses through targeted revisions.
Regarding dark patterns, while the UCPD is applicable, an outright ban would send a stronger message and enable enforcement authorities to declare these practices as unfair without a formal case-by-case assessment. This aligns with other legislation, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Consumer Credit Directive, which have already implemented such bans.
Lock-in practices in online contracts, especially in the digital services, create barriers to switching. There are incentives for businesses to use automatic renewal or conversion of free trials into paid subscriptions and/or hindering the consumers right to terminate the contract. Such practices may even appear in the sales of ‘goods with digital elements’ where digital services and tangible goods are bundled.
Transparency issues concerning the value of digital assets are becoming increasingly prominent. For instance, there is a notable lack of transparency regarding the monetary value of virtual items purchased with virtual currencies. One area of concern is online video games, where in-game virtual currencies are bought with real-world money. However, there are also broader issues with ’digital representations of value’ and ’loyalty currency’, as businesses use customer loyalty and consumer data to hook consumers.
When customer service and complaint handling is digitalized, this is often done in an insufficient way. Consumers need to struggle to obtain redress and contact human representatives when asserting their rights in the customer service. There is a clear need for a higher duty of care in complaint handling and a well-functioning single point of contact. The concept of a ’digital contact point,’ as introduced in DSA Article 12 and the Commission’s simplification initiative Omnibus IV (COM (2025)503, COM (2025)504), could be further developed within the horizontal consumer law framework.
Improving Enforcement Cooperation on the EU-level
Effective enforcement is paramount, and cooperation between EU-level enforcement networks needs to be prioritized. The introduction of new digital legislation (DSA, DMA, AIA) has increased the complexity of regulatory frameworks, making it essential for us to foster collaboration. With every new digital Regulation also a new enforcement network has been created on the EU-level.
Presently, EU-level enforcement networks often conduct parallel investigations without the ability to share information or collaborate effectively. Cases such as the ongoing investigations under UCPD and DSA into Temu as well as Meta’s ’pay or consent’ practices illustrate this issue. The absence of cooperation undermines effective enforcement against major market players, necessitating the demolition of working in silos.
Deceptive practices in influencer marketing, dropshipping, dark patterns, and online scams underscore the need for effective cooperation in enforcement. These problematic practices and cross-border business models thrive due to large online platforms or B2B service providers like template-providers. In these areas consumer harms (financial loss, privacy harms, psychological detriment) are likely to be cumulative. Yet we are lacking strategy, cooperation and information sharing between the EU-level enforcement networks.
The way businesses use AI systems in the consumer markets is an important field for effective enforcement cooperation. There is an increased risk of manipulative practices and the exploitation of emotional data for persuasive purposes. The intersection of the AI Act and horizontal consumer law is critical. For instance, AI practices prohibited under AI Act Articles 5a-b may also constitute unfair practices under the UCPD if they aim to influence consumer commercial decisions. Additionally, transparency requirements outlined in AI Act Article 50 serve as important safeguards against misleading practices.
Renewal of CPC Regulation
The Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Regulation provides a solid foundation for cross-border cooperation, but it requires improvements.
It is important to clarify that the CPC Regulation is applicable to infringements by non-EU traders targeting EU consumers.
Moreover, the CPC Regulation currently lacks provisions for effectively sanctioning traders subject to coordinated EU-level actions.
The CPC Network should be empowered to share information and collaborate with other authorities, overcoming existing confidentiality barriers that hinder effective enforcement.