Towards the Digital Fairness Act How to Better Protect People from Harmful ..
summary
Fitness check shows concrete harms: 90% of popular sites use dark patterns, 60–66% of consumers see fake scarcity, 42% click a control and get a different result, over 30% spend more time or money because of autoplay or infinite scroll, and consumers suffer ~€7.9 billion annual harm plus 80% reporting distress. Proposed Digital Fairness Act aims for clearer UCPD rules (blacklist/standalone rules), bans or greylists for addictive features for minors, easy click-to-cancel subscriptions, stronger enforcement and a CPC enforcement review to fix fragmentation.
AI-written summary · about
chapters (10)
- 0:00Digital Fairness Act panel intro
- 3:37DFA Fitness Check findings
- 12:51Addictive design harms
- 18:52Enforcement gaps and fragmentation
- 25:53Consumer unfair practices
- 31:55EU Commission’s DFA plans
- 48:19Q&A on children’s protection
- 56:38Public sector’s role
- 1:03:29Overlaps with DSA and AI Act
- 1:05:56Final recommendations
related talks
01h 14mDesigned to Hook The Roots of Platform Addiction and Ways Forward
01h 10mMANIPULATIVE DESIGN PRACTICES ONLINE: POLICY SOLUTIONS FOR THE EU AND THE US
52mWhat sorcery is this? How Software uses Dark Patterns to Manipulate Users
01h 21mSimplification for Whom? Unpacking the Consumer Impact of the Digital Omnibus.
01h 16mGovernance of Deepfakes: Intersectional Harms
01h 07mThe GDPR and the broader EU Digital Rulebook
31mThe Virtual Is Real: Ending Online Violence
42mDigital Rights / Digital Wrongs: Tech Policy and Human Rights in Australia