What does digital fairness mean to us?
Digital fairness is a concept rooted in consumer protection. For us, it represents a vision of a digital world in which people can act autonomously and on equal terms. The absence of digital fairness is particularly visible in commercial services. It manifests itself especially through:
Lack of transparency
for example when consumers cannot assess what they are agreeing to when entering contracts
Manipulative practices
for example when large green buttons steer us towards entering into a contract or agreeing to terms that are not in our interests
Tracking and personalisation
for example when a technical system behind a digital service decides within seconds which advertisements or prices we are shown because it knows our preferences, vulnerabilities and financial means in detail
Why are we talking about digital fairness?
Digital fairness sounds like a good thing – but what exactly it means is unclear. Because the term is so broad, it resonates across many different fields and movements: consumer protection, anti-discrimination law, children’s rights online, universal access to digital services, the fundamental right to the confidentiality and integrity of IT systems, and more.
It is difficult to consider all these needs and legal claims together and identify measures that do justice to all of them. But this is precisely the challenge that the debate around digital fairness must confront. Fairness cannot exist only for some; it must apply equally to everyone.
The main conflict, however, is not between different affected groups. In digital markets, power is distributed very unevenly and lies primarily with companies providing those services. The EU’s Digital Fairness Act (DFA) aims to address and correct this imbalance of power. This can only succeed if we understand how fairness online may look different for different groups, and then regulate digital services in ways that support our strengths and protect our vulnerabilities.
In this Spotlight, we explore:
The tensions we encounter around digital fairness
The future scenarios we use to test how we can move closer to digital fairness today
The concrete problems we see and the recommendations for action we propose
The interdisciplinary perspectives the topic requires
Whose work inspires us
How can digital fairness work for everyone?
Digital fairness means accessibility, plain language, and child- and age-appropriate design. We are all vulnerable in digital spaces, but not in the same ways or to the same extent. Digital policies designed to protect people often address just one specific problem and develop a techno-legal solution, which can, in turn, create or exacerbate other problems.
One example: Digital identification systems, which allow people to prove their identity online, are intended to make online purchases safer. But they only do so for people who have an identity document or ID and a smartphone capable of storing it – and the requirements for accessing them can be high. So the question is: safer for whom? Who does such a solution exclude? What does it do to us if we get used to having to identify ourselves everywhere? And what happens if a digital ID is stolen?
Digital fairness cannot be achieved through a one-size-fits-all solution, nor through a collection of isolated measures. It does ask: Who is particularly vulnerable, and who needs particular protection? But the answer cannot be to create fairness only in selected areas and for certain affected groups while continuing to tolerate harmful practices elsewhere.
Digital fairness means strengthening the rights of all consumers and meeting their needs. When these needs come into conflict with each other, we need to look closely and ensure that fundamental rights are always upheld.
As we would say in English: ‘We’re raising the floor for the many, not the ceiling for the few.’ In other words, digital fairness improves conditions for everyone through a strategic and thoughtful approach. Ultimately, it is about raising the bar that digital services are expected to meet!
Is digital fairness different from analogue fairness?
When we talk about digital consumer protection, we are quick to treat problems in digital spaces as exceptional cases: dark patterns, personalised pricing, tracking or algorithmic discrimination seem to call for new, specifically digital responses. But how much of this is actually new, and how much is simply a digital manifestation of familiar power imbalances between companies and consumers and of existing social inequalities?
Treating the ‘digital’ as a distinct sphere helps make new technologies and practices visible and subject to regulation. At the same time, this framing can obscure the root causes of the problems we encounter online. If we focus primarily on how an interface should be designed, an algorithm regulated or consent obtained, more fundamental questions can easily fall out of view: Which business models rely on manipulative practices? Who benefits from digital services, and who bears the risks and costs? Who is actually able to opt out of them? And which existing social inequalities are perpetuated or exacerbated by digital systems?
For us, digital fairness therefore also means continually questioning the boundary between the ‘digital’ and the ‘analogue’. Not every problem in digital spaces has its roots in the digital realm, and not every digital problem requires a digital solution.
It is therefore crucial not only to regulate individual technologies and their impacts, but also to address the underlying societal problems. Digital technologies do not emerge or operate in isolation from existing social conditions: social and economic inequality, or the unequal distribution of power and resources, can be reproduced in digital systems and even intensified by them. People who are already more exposed to discrimination, exploitation or surveillance are often less protected from these harms in digital spaces as well.
Who is responsible for fairness?
Checking cookie settings, reading terms and conditions, opting out of tracking, recognising manipulative design, understanding personalisation: in everyday digital life, the responsibility for protecting oneself from unfair practices is often placed on consumers themselves. The response is then often: more digital literacy. The logic is that people who are well informed, recognise risks, and make the right decisions can protect themselves.
But this understanding of self-determination falls short. Digital services are complex, and their business models and choice architectures are often difficult to understand. Companies have significantly more knowledge, data and power to shape digital environments than individual users. Expecting people simply to become more competent consumers ignores this power imbalance and quickly turns self-determination into a duty of constant self-defence. Self-determination means being able to make genuine choices; it does not mean being personally responsible for defending oneself against unfair practices.
At the same time, this responsibility cannot simply be shifted from the individual to the state. Regulation, too, is based on assumptions about what is fair, desirable or reasonable for consumers. But people have different needs, preferences and ideas about which risks they are willing to take or which services they want to use. When regulation makes too many of these decisions on people’s behalf, protection can quickly turn into paternalism, restricting legitimate choices.
This tension is not diminished by current political developments: as right-wing and authoritarian forces gain influence, consumers who experience discrimination have a greater need for protection, while at the same time state institutions increasingly regard them as less deserving of protection. So what might frameworks look like that effectively protect people from unfair practices and structural power imbalances while still leaving room for different needs and choices? And how should responsibility for this be distributed?
About our Future Scenarios
We want to make digital consumer protection fit for the future – but how will the digital world and its social and political contexts evolve? To explore this question, we developed three future scenarios and discussed them together with experts. Our aim: What choices can we make today to prepare for an uncertain future?
We did not select these scenarios because we consider them likely, but because, as provocations, they open up new spaces for thinking.The methodology is documented here: https://superrr.net/de/blog/szenarien
The recommendations developed through this process can be found in our guidelines “Next Stop: Digital Fairness!”:
Fundamental Rights Behind a Paywall
Europe, mid-2030s: Privacy and digital autonomy have become luxuries. Those who can afford to pay can protect themselves – those who cannot pay with their data. As economic and state interests determine the rules of digital spaces, data protection and consumer protection have largely disappeared. A Europe is emerging in which digital fundamental rights no longer apply to everyone, but are locked behind a paywall.
Read more
Germany and the EU, mid-2030s
After years of economic crisis, an escalating trade conflict between the US and the EU, and an authoritarian political shift to the right in Germany and several other EU member states, political decisions in Europe are driven almost exclusively by supposed economic and security interests. Deregulation is seen as a prerequisite for competitiveness and stability; data protection, consumer protection and civil society participation are increasingly framed as obstacles or risks. The General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR) has been abolished, and digital fundamental rights are no longer regarded as a binding political mandate.
European alternatives to US platforms do emerge, but they follow the Silicon Valley model: data-driven, profit-oriented and closely intertwined with state security interests. Digital fairness becomes a question of what people can afford. Those with the financial means can purchase secure, data-minimising services; most of the population depends on free services that rely on surveillance, manipulative design and aggressive advertising.
Civil society structures have been severely weakened in the course of this political transformation. Independent advisory, oversight and information services for consumers have largely disappeared. At the same time, pressure on the population is growing, as financial losses hit particularly hard during the recession – yet this does not lead to political consequences. Digital spaces have become a central arena for conflicts between states. Data flows, regulation and content are used as instruments of power. National governments continue to lose their ability to shape developments, while platform companies increasingly assume political functions.
In this Europe, digital sovereignty and fairness exist only for those who can afford them or harness them for political purposes. The vision of a digital space that belongs to everyone has given way to a reality in which market logic not only reflects social inequality, but systematically deepens it.
Fair by Default – But How, and for Whom?
Europe, mid-2030s: Digital fundamental rights have become a guiding principle. Open standards, privacy-preserving technologies and fair alternatives shape a more diverse digital landscape. But these new possibilities also raise new questions: What does ‘fair by default’ actually mean in practice, and who gets to decide? Even well-intentioned technologies can create new forms of exclusion. Digital fairness therefore remains not merely a technical solution, but a question of societal negotiation.
Read more
Germany and the EU, mid-2030s
Economic crises and an ongoing trade conflict between the US and the EU shape the political landscape. The recession continues, while geopolitical tensions are still played out through sanctions, market restrictions and digital infrastructure. However, digital dependencies are now regarded as a strategic risk, and fundamental rights as a prerequisite for long-term stability.
The EU responds with major investments in foundational technologies that safeguard fundamental rights. Open standards, interoperability – meaning the ability of different digital systems to work with one another – and privacy-preserving architectures are actively promoted and adopted across both the public and private sectors.
In this environment, numerous small and medium-sized tech alternatives emerge, centred on fairness, transparency and the public good. The digital landscape becomes more diverse, but also more fragmented. Traditional regulatory approaches are only partially effective: many providers are too small to meet existing regulatory thresholds, enforcement of existing law becomes more complex, and responsibilities become less clear.
At the same time, questions about design principles move to the centre of the debate: fairness should be considered from the outset and set as the standard (by design & by default) – but what does that actually mean? Which safeguards should be mandatory, and where is flexibility needed? Who should decide: legislators, developers, civil society or users?
On the positive side, the EU has become significantly better at enforcing rules. At the same time, it becomes clear that even fair alternatives can create new forms of exclusion or fail to scale or meet usability needs. Fairness does not automatically emerge from good technology; it remains a matter of political and societal negotiation.
This scenario shows that genuine alternatives are possible. But digital fairness does not emerge by itself and the details matter.
Digital Compulsion
Europe, 2036: Dealing with public authorities, signing rental agreements, accessing healthcare – almost everything now works quickly and conveniently online. But what happens when going digital is no longer a choice? A functioning digital identity becomes a prerequisite for participating in society, while analogue alternatives increasingly disappear. Those who cannot keep up, or who deliberately choose not to participate, risk being left behind. What was once seen as digital progress has turned into digital coercion.
Read more
Europe, 2036
Hardly anyone remembers how cumbersome administrative processes used to be: dozens of forms, limited appointment availability and endless waiting times. Since 2027, digital identification systems have been mandatory across the EU. By now, almost everything happens digitally, whether applying for social benefits, signing a rental agreement or accessing healthcare, and a functioning digital identity is, of course, taken for granted. Analogue options officially still exist, but in practice they are rare, slow or subject to additional requirements.
Over time, fundamental state functions such as identification and verification have become increasingly intertwined with private-sector digital services. Public services are delivered through technical systems that are themselves part of larger platforms. For users, it is increasingly difficult to understand who is actually responsible when something goes wrong – the state, the provider or the system itself.
To prevent potential malfunctions, high-quality digital solutions have been developed: secure, convenient and governed by clear rules for data use. They are available to those who can afford them. Everyone else is left with basic or free services that provide access but offer little protection and require extensive use of personal data.
This entire development has noticeably transformed everyday life. Digital literacy is tacitly assumed, and constant availability is considered normal. Those who opt out of digital systems or cannot use them reliably quickly find themselves excluded. In some areas, a lack of digital visibility is even perceived as a risk. Responsibility for security, correct use and potential consequences rests primarily with individuals.
At the same time, new forms of resistance are emerging. Civil society initiatives, alternative technological solutions and independent services are trying to create spaces for agency beyond established structures. They offer places of refuge and guidance, but often remain fragmented and difficult for many people to access.
Our Positions
Digital fairness faces many challenges. In our publications, we describe the problems, outline the societal impacts of power imbalances, and show how things could be done differently.
Position Paper: Digital Fairness
What are the structural causes of digital unfairness? This position paper examines power imbalances between consumers and companies and shows why a model of consumer protection that focuses primarily on information, transparency and individual decision-making falls short.
It highlights the importance of a structural, power-critical approach and sets out key propositions and areas for action for future-proof digital consumer protection – from an intersectional understanding of consumers and approaches to personalisation to making fairness the standard and default (Fairness by Design & Default).
The Internet We Want
Discriminatory algorithms, opaque data practices and growing power asymmetries shape consumers’ everyday digital lives. But how do we move from analysing digital power imbalances to achieving concrete change? ‘The Internet We Want’ shows that digital consumer protection never exists in isolation. It intersects with data protection, gender equity, children’s rights and anti-discrimination – and therefore with fundamental questions of justice. We offer six policy impulses for how digital consumer protection can contribute to a human-centred internet.
At its core is a shift in perspective: digital consumer protection must go beyond transparency and consent. Instead, we need Fairness by Design and Default, genuine choices rather than false choices such as ‘Pay or OK’, clear rules against discriminatory profiling, and stronger links between different areas of protections and law.
Zine: Don’t blame yourself – claim your rights!
What can we do when we feel manipulated, overwhelmed or powerless in our everyday digital lives? This mini-zine explains in an accessible way why personalised pricing, deceptive patterns and ‘Pay or OK’ models are not individual problems, but expressions of structural power imbalances.
Rather than placing responsibility on individual consumers, the zine shows that platforms are not neutral, design is political, and genuine freedom of choice requires fair conditions. At the same time, it encourages people to claim their rights to privacy, transparency, data deletion and support.
Next Stop: Digital Fairness!
Are cookie banners the biggest problem on the internet or is it tracking? Anyone working on digital consumer protection is confronted with an overwhelming number of problems and an equally overwhelming range of measures intended to address them. The desire to make the digital world fairer can quickly result in a patchwork of recommendations.
That is why our guidelines start one step earlier: they set out overarching design principles for future-proof digital consumer protection. Rather than responding to individual technologies or problems, they ask what guardrails we need today to ensure that digital fairness can become a reality even as technological and societal conditions change.
Thematic Deep Dives
Digital Fairness is about more than cookie banners or the next click. It touches on questions of power and discrimination, participation, surveillance, data and global justice. In five essays, our experts take a closer look: they explore key tensions from different perspectives and ask which political, societal and technological choices we need to make today to create fairer digital spaces tomorrow.
About the Project ‘Forum Digital Fairness and Consumer Protection’
This content was developed as part of the “Forum Digital Fairness and Consumer Protection” project and funded by the Federal Ministry of Justice and Consumer Protection on the basis of a decision by the German Bundestag. An overview of the project and our activities can be found on the project page: https://superrr.net/de/work/forum-digital-fairness
