The right to switch off
The Digital Fairness Act would give us a switch against addictive design. But if the designer creates the problem, why should the user have to activate the fix?
On 11 November the European Commission presented its proposal for a Digital Fairness Act. It is a regulation: it would replace the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive and apply the same way in every Member State. There is a lot in it: a ban on dark patterns, subscriptions you can cancel online, the right to reach a human when nothing else works.
I want to stop on one rule. Every consumer, adults included, would be able to switch off addictive design features: autoplay, notifications built to pull you back, the endless prompts to stay.
Is a switch a victory?
Partly, yes. For the first time a consumer law proposal says plainly that an interface can be built to hold on to us against our own interest. This is no longer only about content. It is about architecture.
But look at how it works. The designer creates the problem. The user has to activate the fix. I need to know the switch exists. I need to find it. I need to remember to use it, perhaps on every service, perhaps after every update. The burden lands back on me: the same logic as the cookie banner, with one more button.
In my work on Habeas Mentem I call this the reversal of the burden: it should be whoever designs the choice environment who proves it does not work against my mind, not me defending myself click after click. Fewer choices, more freedom. One honest default is worth more than ten well-hidden switches.
The default is the real rule
The proposal also mentions a general fairness-by-design obligation. The analyses published in recent days note that its boundaries are still vague. That is where the game will be played. If it stays a principle, it will count for little. If it becomes measurable, it changes how products are designed.
And it can be measured. Nobody's mind needs to be read. The point is to check whether a person, in front of that screen, understands what is happening and manages to do what they meant to do.
The text now goes to Parliament and Council. There is still time to decide which side the weight falls on.
Personal reflection, not legal advice.