BRUSSELS — You know that customer-service bot that won’t let you cancel your subscription? The EU wants to kill it.  

With a new law presented Wednesday, the European Commission will take aim at the endless array of practices websites have used over the past 20 years to make more money from consumers.  

The Digital Fairness Act is the European response to a wider regulatory trend that has seen consumer authorities curb irksome and exploitative practices. These include dynamic pricing that changes ticket prices based on demand, cumbersome processes for canceling subscriptions and the near-complete surrender of customer service to automated systems.  

According to a draft of the DFA obtained by POLITICO, the Commission will address several aspects of the design, service and terms under which businesses interact with consumers online. 

“Europe should not accept a digital economy where profits depend on exploiting people’s vulnerabilities,” Spanish socialist lawmaker Laura Ballarín Cereza, a key European lawmaker on tech legislation, said in a statement.

Industry leaders have pushed back on this potential new rulebook ever since the EU executive began considering a revision of consumer law in 2022. They say current consumer protection and digital services laws already cover these practices. “Where existing rules already cover a practice, it should not be regulated or enforced a second time,” said Ben Brake, director general of tech lobby DOT Europe.  

Consumer groups say existing rules, some dating back to 2005, are not clear enough and that many unfair design practices are still rampant.  

The Commission would have the power to impose fines of up to 6% of global annual revenue for companies that violate the new law. Those penalties are similar to fines levied under the Digital Services Act, the EU’s platform rules meant to stop Big Tech platforms from provoking systemic, society-wide harms through everything from election interference to keeping minors away from violent content. The new law instead would apply to any business offering services to EU consumers online. 

Dark patterns

The DFA would ban deceptive design known as “dark patterns,” which manipulate consumers through the use of such tactics as bright-colored buttons placed prominently to get customers to buy something. It also aims to ban personalized pricing that targets vulnerable consumers, including minors.  

The practice of dynamic pricing is also targeted in the law. That’s when a seller adjusts the price based on conditions such as demand or a user’s location, and it is commonly used in the sale of concert and airline tickets. The proposed law requires transparency when customers are buying products whose prices are subject to change.  

The DFA also covers consumer rights around “agentic commerce,” when artificial intelligence agents are used to find and complete purchases. 

Four lawmakers from the conservative, socialist and liberal groups said the requirement doesn’t go far enough and that the DFA should completely ban dynamic pricing for cultural and sporting events, according to a letter obtained by POLITICO. 

Sellers offering subscriptions will have to provide an easy way to cancel, reminiscent of New York State’s “click to cancel” rules. The new EU rules also require that a human is available for after-sales customer support.  

The rules also address, for the first time, specific aspects of online gaming, including bans on video games that allow kids to pay to succeed and progress in the game.  

The DFA is also trying to make its mark on what is known as “addictive design” of online platforms. This has already been the target of enforcement action in Europe and litigation in the U.S. in cases involving minors. But the new consumer rules would apply to adults as well, requiring online platforms to offer an opt-out from addictive features like autoplay.  

Spain’s Ballarín Cereza thinks this is not enough, saying users should be opted out of these features by default. “Why should consumers carry the burden when companies deliberately design these addictive mechanisms? We must shift from consumer responsibility to corporate responsibility: safety and fairness must be the default, not an option,” she said. 

A Polish man, who fatally shot six people after driving onto Kraków’s main square Saturday, died in hospital Monday, local police reported.

“We would like to inform you that the perpetrator of the tragic events died in hospital early this morning,” police wrote on X.

The masked 24-year-old opened fire on passersby in central Kraków, killing six people, including a British citizen, and injuring 16 — 12 of whom remain in critical condition. Police shot and detained the attacker. They also found his parents and sister dead at their family home Sunday. Investigators are examining those deaths alongside the Kraków attack, and have opened a terrorism probe.

Authorities identified the suspect as Michał O., from Ostrowiec Świętokrzyski, a town about 140 kilometers northeast of Kraków. He had a firearms permit and was not previously known to police.

Interior Minister Marcin Kierwiński initially said that “everything indicated that he was fascinated by extreme right-wing ideologies,” but later he said the shooter’s motives remained unclear.

“My deepest condolences to the families and loved ones of the victims of the tragic attack in Kraków. My highest praise for the heroic police officers who risked their lives,” Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk wrote on X on Saturday. “And a heartfelt appeal to politicians of all stripes: do not exploit this tragedy. We will establish all the circumstances of this crime.”

BRUSSELS — As European leaders prepare to project urgency at their first joint meeting on artificial intelligence, their governments are missing important AI safety and infrastructure targets.

The bloc’s 27 leaders are meeting Friday in Dublin to discuss how to accelerate efforts to stay safe and be more competitive on artificial intelligence.

Yet 16 capitals have missed a deadline to appoint a national authority to enforce the bloc’s AI safety law, and Brussels has also pushed back an effort to support the buildout of data centers because of national administrative delays.

European Parliament lawmaker Sergey Lagodinsky, a German member of the Greens, said the delays are undermining capitals’ credibility when speaking about Europe’s AI ambitions.

“Stop blaming the EU for missing the race if you miss your own deadlines,” he said. “Europe’s AI ambitions cannot be delivered if national capitals cannot get their act together.”

In a letter seen by POLITICO, Lagodinsky asked the European Commission to start a formal procedure against capitals for failing to meet their legal requirements under the AI law.

Safety has been a growing concern for EU leaders amid a series of incidents of rogue AI agents over summer, more recent cyberattacks and ominous warnings of possible existential risk for humanity from those inside the industry.

Brussels has repeatedly pointed out that the EU has regulation in place — its flagship Artificial Intelligence Act — to guard against the threats.

With an August 2025 deadline to appoint the national enforcement authority, six countries — Austria, Belgium, Bulgaria, Croatia, Slovakia and Hungary — have not selected an authority, while 10 other capitals have only made a provisional decision that still needs to be adopted, the Commission confirmed.

Beyond safety, European Council President António Costa said in his invitation letter to Friday’s meeting in Dublin that a key topic will be how to make Europe less dependent on the U.S. and China for the technology underpinning artificial intelligence.

But the EU has also delayed the infrastructure buildout necessary for Europe to be competitive, by pushing back plans to support seven AI compute hubs across Europe.

The department running that €30 billion investment project announced at the end of October that it would extend the deadline for consortia to express their interest in building these hubs that include massive AI data center projects in different countries.

The stated reason for the postponement was “to give member states the necessary time to complete their national budgetary process and submit financial commitments.”

It was the second delay in a row, after the initial November deadline moved to February.

Jan Kavalírek, who had a brief stint last year as the Czech government’s AI envoy and is involved in the Czech bid, posted on LinkedIn: “Apparently, some paperwork wasn’t submitted on time,” alongside a shrugging emoji.

“I think it’s very important, that it’s essential that we keep some timeline and condition that were presented at the beginning,” he told POLITICO.

“Of course, this also applies to the member states, which should be able to keep up with the deadlines and deliver all necessary documents in time to Brussels.”

BRUSSELS — Prince Harry and Meghan Markle will visit the European Parliament next week to discuss online child safety, according to an email sent to lawmakers and seen by POLITICO.

Visiting Brussels for the first time as a couple, the Duke and Duchess of Sussex will on Tuesday join Parliament President Roberta Metsola in opening an exhibition honoring “the memory of children whose lives were lost in connection with online harms.”

Prince Harry will then discuss with Commissioner Dubravka Šuica, experts and lawmakers “how we can turn legislative commitments into effective safeguards for children, including through safer design, stronger enforcement, and clear accountability for technology companies,” the email reads.

The event is being hosted by Spanish center-right lawmaker Antonio López-Istúriz White, who is the vice president of the Parliament’s intergroup on children’s rights. In September, the European Commission proposed the EU Kids Act, which includes restrictions on social media use for minors.

“The decisions we take on AI, platform design and the enforcement of online safeguards will shape the digital environments in which children grow up. This responsibility cuts across parliamentary committees and policy areas; the experiences of children and families should inform and guide our work throughout,” Lopéz wrote in his invitation to other lawmakers.

BRUSSELS — NATO countries are bracing for a worst-case scenario in the U.S. midterm elections Tuesday.

European allies fear a Republican loss could spur President Donald Trump to dramatically step up his attacks on the alliance, according to five NATO diplomats, all of whom were granted anonymity to speak freely on the sensitive issue.

Their worry is that if he is restrained by Congress on domestic policy, Trump, as commander-in-chief of the U.S. military, may seek to cement his legacy on foreign affairs, where he has a freer hand. That could mean pulling thousands more troops out of Europe, three of the diplomats said.

“Usually what happens to lame duck presidents is a mix of venting frustrations and adventurism in foreign policy,” said one senior European defense official. And attacking NATO “seems to be a consistent part of [the] Trump worldview.”

White House Assistant Press Secretary Olivia Wales told POLITICO that “President Trump has done more for NATO than anyone else,” citing his successes in securing agreements by allies to raise defense spending to 5% of GDP by 2035, bolster U.S. military presence in Greenland, and efforts to end Russia’s all-out war in Ukraine.

Yet he “remains firm that our NATO allies should have been there for the United States” over the war in Iran, she said, adding: “The President will never settle for the West’s managed decline and will continue to unapologetically advance our interests at home and abroad.”

Democrats are widely expected to win the House of Representatives and potentially flip the Senate, while Trump’s personal approval ratings have fallen to his lowest on record.

The worries underscore growing transatlantic tensions after a U.S. cutoff of Starlink satellite services for Ukraine and a fresh rapprochement between Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin weeks before the midterms. Further attacks would deal a fresh blow to NATO, just as Russia steps up its sabotage campaign and so-called hybrid war across Europe.

“He could be very pissed off,” said one of the NATO diplomats. If so, “he’ll be very harsh.”

Forces, money and Ukraine

At the heart of the concerns is an upcoming review of U.S. forces in Europe, expected by December. If Trump is blocked from legislating domestically, he may seek to significantly increase the scope of that pullback to rally his MAGA base, three of the diplomats said. 

The president could also decide to tie continued American presence on the continent to Europe accepting a U.S.-backed peace deal in Ukraine, said Oana Lungescu, a former NATO official and distinguished fellow at the Royal United Services Institute think tank.

“There is a risk that all these things — the U.S. force posture review, Ukraine, European security order … somehow are treated as part of a much bigger deal with Putin,” she said, “creating a very dangerous situation for security in Europe.”

Trump could also move to cut U.S. contributions to the alliance’s common funding, limit the NATO-backed PURL arms-buying scheme for Ukraine, as well as deepen ties still further with Russia, the diplomats said.

A major electoral defeat for the Republicans could also spell big changes at the Pentagon, which would have knock-on effects for any plans currently being hatched in the building.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has become a deeply unpopular figure in Congress, given his refusal to provide regular briefings about budgets and operations to lawmakers, especially Democrats.

That unpopularity has led to speculation that Hegseth could be out after an electoral blowout for Trump, partially because a Democrat-led Congress would slap Hegseth with probes into his firing of dozens of generals and admirals with no cause, and the faltering war with Iran. Those hearings and investigations would hamstring Hegseth and his team, and could prove embarrassing for the administration.

If Hegseth does move on, there would be a transition period in the Pentagon which could push any decisions about moving U.S. troops out of Europe back by weeks or months.

In theory, a Democrat majority in the House and Senate would restrain Trump’s maneuverability even on foreign and defense issues, even if U.S. law currently imposes a minimum limit of 76,000 on troop presence in Europe. 

But “it is doubtful that at least the troop floors would stand up to legal scrutiny and in any case Trump has been very willing to ignore the courts,” said Jennifer Kavanagh, a senior fellow at the Defense Priorities think tank. “The Trump administration has regularly ignored funding guidance from Congress, spending money on activities the legislative branch has not authorized.”

If Trump decides to impose a more sprawling drawdown, Europe will have “the most trouble” replacing assets including electronic warfare capabilities, air defense systems, intelligence and reconnaissance support, aerial refueling, and some types of logistics, she said.

Other allies are more skeptical Trump would hammer NATO. “We have had speculations all the time about Trump … coming out of the NATO; this has not happened so far,” Montenegrin Defense Minister Dragan Krapović told POLITICO. “Congress is the one making the decision, the final decision about less troops in Europe.”

But “to make assumptions with a high probability of success needs an object of study that makes rational decisions,” said a sixth NATO diplomat. “I don’t think we are there with the current POTUS.”

NATO and the U.S. Department of Defense did not respond to requests for comment by POLITICO.