13.6.2025
The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities are calling on the Commission to deliver a strong Consumer Agenda 2025-2030 and Digital Fairness Act
The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities in Denmark (Danish Consumer Ombudsman)[1], Finland (Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority), Iceland (Icelandic Consumer Agency), Norway (Norwegian Consumer Authority) and Sweden (Swedish Consumer Agency) have a long history of consumer protection cooperation, in particular regarding enforcement. The Nordic model of protecting consumers have proven to be successful and, even though we are small countries, we are all active Members of the CPC Network striving to ensure strong consumer protection across the union. The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities would like to share their views based on their experience with consumer protection enforcement cooperation and enforcement as independent enforcement authorities. Please note that this is without prejudice to future assessments of concrete initiatives or political positions of the Member States.
The mission letters of Commissioner McGrath and Vice-President Virkkunen are important for the direction of future consumer policy. The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities are welcoming initiatives such as the adoption of a new Consumer Agenda for 2025-2030, including an action plan, and the new Digital Fairness Act addressing unethical techniques and commercial practices. In addition, effective enforcement, including cooperation between different enforcement networks, needs to be on top of the agenda. The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities are therefore welcoming the Commission’s Communication on a comprehensive EU toolbox for safe and sustainable e-commerce, where enforcement plays a key role. Furthermore, Commissioner McGrath’s commitment to revise the Consumer Protection Cooperation
Regulation (CPC Regulation) as expressed in the Commission’s e-commerce communication is an important part of strengthening enforcement of consumer protection legislation. The conclusions of the European Consumer Summit 2024 and 2025, the recommendations of Enrico Letta’s report and also the results of the Digital Fairness Fitness Check, are clear; enhanced enforcement is needed to ensure strong consumer protection in the EU.
In view of the upcoming Consumer Agenda 2025-2030 and the adoption of a Digital Fairness Act, the Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities are calling on the Commission to consider the following positions in its future work.
1.Ensuring an effective enforcement within the union
Consumer protection legislation is only as effective as the enforcement of it. Ensuring an effective enforcement is therefore key to reach well-functioning consumer markets. The regulatory environment within the EU, in particular for digital markets, has become more complex as new horizontal acts have been introduced, such as the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Digital Markets Act (DMA). Tech giants providing services to EU consumers need to comply with EU legal framework regardless of their establishment. The new regulatory approach, and the presence of big players, requires new measures and cooperations to ensure an effective, parallel enforcement, at both national and EU level. The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities have identified two key actions to improve the enforcement of consumer protection legislation.
(a) Cooperation between different enforcement networks
The digitalisation of consumer markets, together with the introduction of new horizontal EU legislation, are making it clear that we need close cross-sectorial enforcement cooperation. Today, several EU legal frameworks are closely intertwined, such as consumer and data protection, and in some cases, also overlapping such as the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (UCPD) and the DSA. In addition, enforcement is taking place both through national enforcement authorities and through specific functions within the European Commission, like for the DSA and DMA. Several EU level networks have been created to foster multilateral enforcement cooperation, but there is no clear strategy on how these networks should work together.
It’s clear that different enforcers are conducting investigations against the same trader regarding the same practice, without the possibility to share information between them due to confidentiality provisions. This needs to change. To enforce effectively, and act in a coherent and coordinated manner against big players, enforcers need close cooperation which is not restricted by unfounded confidentiality rules.
(b) Revision of the CPC Regulation
The CPC Regulation provides for a solid legal basis for effective cross-border consumer protection cooperation. The instrument is crucial to address infringements by traders active in several EU countries. However, there is room for improvements, in particular related to the following elements:
– Addressing infringements by traders established in third countries
Having effective means to address infringements committed by traders outside the union is crucial to ensure a high level of consumer protection and a level playing field for European traders. Since the EU consumer acquis is applicable to traders directing their activities to the union, the CPC Network should be able to ensure compliance through for example coordinated actions against non-compliant third country traders. It is therefore important to clarify that the CPC Regulation is applicable to all traders, including those established in third countries, directing their activities to consumers in the EU.
– Cooperating with other competent authorities and institutions
As stated under section 1(a), it should be possible for the CPC Network to exchange information with other enforcers about ongoing cases and actions, and maybe even cooperate in coordinated actions. However, the current provisions on confidentiality, for example in the DSA, CPC Regulation, and the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), seem to be major obstacles to cooperation. To ensure effective enforcement, CPC authorities might also need to cooperate with other authorities such as market surveillance authorities for the AI Act and National Enforcement Bodies for passenger rights. Enforcers can no longer work in silos if enforcement should remain effective on all markets. Strong consumer protection should be a common goal for all enforcers.
– Sanctioning traders during a coordinated action
It is clear that the CPC Regulation lacks rules on how to effectively sanction a trader subject to a CPC coordinated action. If the Commission would be given investigative and sanction powers, in specific cases, it is important that it builds upon the current structure of enforcement and that CPC authorities still have a role in such actions/situations to ensure that the assessment of the Commission is aligned with the assessment of the enforcement authorities. Providing the Commission with such powers would be an important step to make both enforcement and sanctioning of rouge traders operating in several EU/EEA countries more effective. However, the subsidiarity principles of the Treaties must still be respected. New powers and cooperation mechanisms should avoid overriding national priorities by several Member States or marginalising the work of national enforcement authorities.
2. Do not underestimate principle-based legislation; more specific rules are not always the solution
The EU consumer acquis has gone through major changes in the last couple of years to adapt the framework to digital consumer markets. The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities are, in general, pleased with the current legal framework, specifically the UCPD and the Unfair Contract Terms Directive (UCTD). Both Directives, with their principle-based approach, provides enforcement authorities with the flexible, technology neutral, legal framework that we need to address unfair terms and practices. Specific rules are not always the best solution, in particular due to the rapid development of new marketing techniques and business models.
In some situations, additional requirements that preserve the flexible framework of the UCPD could be considered. For example, the Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities are, in general, pleased with the rules applicable to influencer marketing. However, to bring clarity on how to disclose commercial content on social media platforms, further criteria based on e.g., case-law and guidance, could be added to the UCPD. The CPC Network has for example developed key principles [2] to consider when disclosing commercial content such as the wording, how the text is presented (e.g., size, font, colours, frames and level of opacity), placement, and the importance of considering specific vulnerabilities of children. Such criteria could improve the framework while still keeping the principle-based approach that is very useful in digital contexts. Furthermore, it is therefore recommended to continue focusing on enforcement and aligning the assessments of national authorities through the CPC cooperation.
3. Digital Fairness Act: Targeted revisions addressing digital practices
As expressed above, the Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities are in general pleased with the legal framework. However, given the growing digital asymmetry between consumers and businesses targeted revisions could be considered. In the report of the Digital Fairness Fitness Check, there are five main categories of practices that have been identified as common problems on digital markets. Within those categories, the Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities are considering the need for the following targeted actions:
– Dark patterns
The UCPD is already applicable against deceptive design practices, however, an outright ban would both send a stronger message to businesses to refrain from using such practices and allow enforcement authorities to declare these practices as unfair without a formal case-by-case assessment. This would be in line with other legislations where outright bans have already been introduced such as the DSA and Consumer Credit Directive. Using the design, including the structure and functionalities, of online interfaces to manipulate consumers, and increase digital asymmetry, should be clearly condemned in horizontal consumer law. Consumers should not be pressured, shamed, nor persuaded towards a particular choice.
It should, however, be recognised that a ban will not be a simple solution since these practices, in many cases, end up in the grey-zone between acceptable and unfair commercial practices requiring case-by-case assessments. In addition, traders could under the current framework be obliged to provide evidence upon request from enforcement authorities that the design of the interface is not misleading consumers, e.g., by providing results from A/B testing.
– Addictive design
Addictive design features, on for example social media platforms, dating apps, and in games, are generally commercial practices aiming to get consumers to spend more time, money or data than they originally intended to. These mechanisms often exploit consumers’ psychological vulnerabilities to maximize time spent and daily visits to the service. Many of these design features could also be considered as dark patterns and should therefore be prohibited, but could in any case be addressed through the UCPD. It is not excluded that rules on addictive design need to be incorporated in other fields of EU policy to address for example non-commercial practices which cannot be covered by the concept of consumers’ economic interest.
– Online video games
There are features in online games which are highly problematic for most consumers, but in particular children. The UCPD can be applied to address most commercial practices, but in some cases, it would be useful to introduce specific rules to make the enforcement easier. An area of concern is the use of in-game virtual currencies bought for real-world money which, in turn, can be used to purchase, for example in-game items. The use of in-game virtual currencies makes it difficult for consumers to keep track of how much money they spend in an online game or on a social media platform. In addition, based on how virtual currencies are used today, consumers risk losing rights or the ability to effectively exercise them along the way.
According to the Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities it is not likely that clear information on the value of virtual currency and conversion rates would completely rectify the situation, as the artificial two-step buying created by the intermediary currencies creates a complex situation for consumers. Therefore, the Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities recommend the Commission to prohibit in-game virtual currencies that are bought for real-world money in online games and applications. Virtual currencies are not bringing any meaningful consumer benefits but may instead serve to deprive them of basic consumer rights. The CPC Network has recently published a guidance document [3] on how the current legal framework should be applied to the use of in-game virtual currencies. However, as explained above, it is not likely that the current framework will address all the identified issues with in-game virtual currencies.
It also makes sense to introduce restrictions in the use of game features resembling gambling, such as loot boxes and wheel of fortunes, in games and applications. Gambling services should not have a place in consumers’ digital playgrounds, that is why such services are widely regulated in each Member State and are already prohibited for children.
– Personalisation
The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities are welcoming the prohibitions against personalised advertisement based on profiling of children and sensitive data, as introduced in Articles 26(3) and 28(2) of the DSA. However, the same protection is not guaranteed to consumer including children when they are interacting with for example traders selling goods through their own web shops or in an online game. Therefore, the Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities recommends the Commission to introduce similar prohibitions, as in the DSA, into the UCPD to ensure that all consumers including minors are guaranteed the same protection against these practices.
In addition, the Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities recognise that there are other data than sensitive data which is used to target vulnerable consumers, such as data related to credits and gambling. Studies show that consumers in debt are regularly exposed to personalised advertisement on consumer credits often conveying the message that this particular credit is the solution to all your problems. There are also links between consumers with gambling addictions being targeted with personalised advertisement on credits, enabling these consumers to continue gambling and increasing their debt. The use of psychological data, such as different personality traits, is another example of data which could be used in exploitation of consumer vulnerabilities. The Authorities are therefore calling on the Commission to consider additional restrictions to personalised advertisement to protect vulnerable consumers.
– Digital contracts
The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities share the Commission’s problem description of digital contracts. “Freemium” models ending up in lengthy digital subscriptions, or difficulties to cancel digital contracts are indeed problematic for consumers. The Nordic Consumer Protection Authorities considers that consumers should have a real choice whether a time-limited free trial period should continue and turn into a subscription. Traders should be required to get explicit consent from consumers before changing the nature of a time-limited trial period into a subscription. Such consent should not be collected before the end of the trial period. A time-limited free trial period should not require any payment details from consumers. It is, however, important to further analyse how to prevent circumvention of such rules by introducing e.g., a 1 EUR fee for the trial period. Furthermore, it should be prohibited to make the procedure for terminating a contract more difficult than subscribing to it. Different options to realise such principle could be considered, based on for example experiences with similar functions.
Ms. Þórunn Anna Árnadóttir, Director, Icelandic Consumer Agency
Mr. Torben Jensen, Consumer Ombudsman, The Danish Consumer Ombudsman
Ms. Cecilia Tisell, Director General and Consumer Ombudsman Swedish Consumer Agency
Ms. Katri Väänänen, Consumer Ombudsman, Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority
Ms. Bente Øverli, Director General, The Norwegian Consumer Authority
[1] Given the division of tasks between national authorities in Denmark, the Danish Consumer Ombudsman’s endorsement is limited to issues raised under point 1 “Ensuring an effective enforcement within the union”.
[2] 6099530c b21f-4f69-87b3-0681a2a63650_en
[3] https://commission.europa.eu/document/8af13e88-6540-436c-b137-9853e7fe866a_en