Introduction

The 2030 Consumer Agenda sets four key priorities for the upcoming five years: removing barriers in the Single Market, boosting digital fairness, supporting sustainable consumption, and strengthening enforcement. These key priorities do not come as a surprise, just as the importance attached to competitiveness and simplification throughout the Agenda is also unsurprising. Fortunately, offsetting this last overarching priority, protecting consumers in vulnerable situations is also acknowledged as an overarching priority. Somewhat new is that, within that context, specific emphasis is placed on low-income families and the cost of living. All in all, it is commendable that, despite the changing political climate, the Commission still stresses the need for consumer protection more explicitly than it has done before and embraces sustainability as a goal. However, the proof of the pudding is in the eating, and we should be cautious that simplification does not become a different term for the weakening of protection in the area of consumer law as well. 

Overarching vision

The Agenda’s overarching vision is that “consumer protection, competitiveness and sustainable prosperity are mutually reinforcing” (p. 1). Hereby, the Commission has definitely moved away from emphasising the need for confident and empowered consumers. Instead, it simply stresses the need for consumer protection. To what extent this also has consequences for the kind of protection that is offered remains to be seen. The Commission started using the term ‘consumer protection’ again more often in the New Deal for Consumers of 2018. However, back then, the return of the language of protection was “not necessarily paired with any significant protective measures” (Bartl 2024, p. 102). This also seems largely true for the 2030 Consumer Agenda. It still mainly focuses on the consumer’s ability to make informed decisions, despite the definite move away from the confident and empowered consumer language. Nevertheless, as Ouyang points out, from an optimistic perspective, it could be argued that the Agenda does refer more often to terms such as social fairness and social equality than before. 

After the Draghi report and Competitiveness Compass, it is unsurprising that European competitiveness is also high on the Agenda. Because consumers “play an essential role in the engine room of our economy” (p. 1), consumer protection is considered essential for fostering a competitive market. In turn, a competitive market is deemed necessary to increase consumer welfare through “a wide choice of quality goods and services at affordable prices” (p. 1). In line with this vision, one of the overarching priorities of the Agenda is simplification and the reduction of administrative burden. As a result, for example, the Digital Fairness Act should not only aim to strengthen the protection of consumers online, but also simplify rules for business (p. 7). Of course, this will benefit business, but according to the Commission, it should also benefit consumers because it allows “businesses to help ease cost of living pressures” (p. 2). How competitiveness can reinforce sustainable growth is not elaborated upon in the Agenda. 

If sustainability had been given less priority in the Agenda than in the New Consumer Agenda of 2020, that would also have been no surprise in light of recent political developments, like the Omnibus I Package. Luckily, sustainability is still part of the overarching vision of the Agenda. The consumer’s demand for responsible products is perceived as a driver for sustainable growth. Furthermore, the availability and affordability of sustainable goods and services are considered central “not only to consumer well-being […], but also to Europe’s long-term competitiveness” (p. 10). 

Finally, the protection of consumers in vulnerable situations is also part of the vision of the Agenda, because it is recognised as an overarching priority. To some extent, this is a continuation of the fourth key priority of the New Consumer Agenda of 2020, namely, addressing the specific needs of certain consumer groups. While in the 2030 Consumer Agenda, there are various references to vulnerable consumers and vulnerable groups, it is interesting to see that, as an overarching priority, it is referred to as protecting consumers in vulnerable situations. Perhaps this is to accommodate the critique that everyone can be vulnerable due to situational factors, not just specific types or groups of consumers (Helberger et al. 2021, p. 25). Yet the examples of consumers that can be vulnerable have largely stayed the same: people with disabilities, older people, young consumers and low-income families (p. 2). The resulting emphasis on low-income families and the cost of living throughout the entire Agenda is somewhat new.  

Digital fairness

Zooming in on digital fairness as one of the key priority areas, it is immediately obvious that the Digital Fairness Act is intended to be the flagship project. The proposal for the Digital Fairness Act can be expected in the last quarter of 2026. Unfortunately, the Agenda does not say much more about its envisaged content than was already known. The Digital Fairness Act will aim to supplement EU digital policy legislation by providing a horizontal safety net that is fit for the digital age. In particular, it will aim to strengthen the online protection of minors. In justifying their qualification as vulnerable consumers, the Commission refers to various non-economic harms, such as online bullying, self-harm and addiction. Perhaps this could be interpreted as a hint towards the inclusion of more non-economic interest in the Digital Fairness Act than EU consumer law is accustomed to. 

Sustainable consumption

While sustainability is still high on the Agenda, the question is whether the ambitions are as high as before. The Commission mainly stresses the need to support the correct use of the already adopted Ecodesign Directive, Right to Repair Directive and Empowerment Directive. No reference is being made to the proposal for a Green Claims Directive. As a result, that directive now seems to be withdrawn for good. All in all, the sustainability policy is thus largely based on the idea that the actions already taken should be sufficient. This leads to a continuation of the belief that the consumer’s preference for sustainable products is the best available driver for sustainable growth in this policy area. To some extent, this is an admission of weakness because some consumers lack such a preference, and the consumers who do have such a preference do not always follow up on that for understandable reasons. The Commission also sees this problem, but believes that removing barriers, like greenwashing, is sufficient. Consequently, other policy options, like moving towards less consumption or weakening polluting consumer rights, such as the withdrawal right, are not discussed in the Agenda. Somewhat surprisingly, measures related to the housing crisis and the affordability of food are also discussed under the umbrella of sustainable consumption. 

Enforcement

Strong enforcement is not only deemed necessary to protect consumers’ interests, but also to shield “compliant companies from unfair competition” (p. 2). The Commission sees the low compliance rates in digital markets as particularly problematic. To respond to this challenge, on the public enforcement side, a revision of the Consumer Protection Cooperation Regulation will be proposed. That revision will not only aim to strengthen coordination among national authorities, but might also confer, in specific cases, centralised investigation and enforcement powers on, most likely, the Commission. This would be a very welcome addition to the current enforcement toolbox and might reduce the gap in enforcement powers between EU consumer law and EU digital policy legislation. On the private enforcement side, the Agenda mainly highlights the aim of strengthening collective actions based on the already adopted Representative Actions Directive.

Concluding thoughts

All in all, I am somewhat positive about the new Agenda, probably because my expectations were quite low due to the current political emphasis on competitiveness and simplification. While, as always, there is room for improvement and the proof of the pudding is in the eating, it is commendable that, despite the changing political climate, the Commission still stresses the need for consumer protection more explicitly than it has done before and embraces sustainability as a goal. At the same time, it should be mentioned that the Commission seems to want to have the cake and eat it too. The obvious tensions between consumer protection, competitiveness, and sustainable growth are disregarded in the Agenda. It is only emphasised how these objectives can mutually reinforce each other. As a result, no real tough policy decisions have been made. 

This creates an agenda for academics and, of course, also for other stakeholders. We should be very cautious that simplification will not become a different term for the weakening of protection in the area of consumer law as well (cf. the Omnibus I Package and the Digital Omnibus Regulation). Lastly, to conclude on a more positive note, the new emphasis on protecting low-income families and tackling the high costs of living is very welcome. “The owner of a yacht cannot be compared to an electricity customer who cannot pay his bill and whose provider turns off the power” (Micklitz 2013, p. 5), but so far, that has been done too often in EU consumer law. Those who need it the most should also be entitled to the highest level of protection.