Consumer Protections: Where Europe Succeeds and America Fails

Image via Forbes

***

On February 27, 2026, the Norwegian Consumer Council published a report titled “Breaking Free: Pathways to a Fair Technological Future.” It centers on the phenomenon of “enshittification,” which it defines as companies “getting away with providing worse services, often at a higher price;” it listed several reasons for its prominence, including the high costs of switching to alternatives, corporate mergers and acquisitions which stifle competition, and the restrictions of consumer use since they do not own the product/service. 

The term was first coined by digital rights activist Cory Doctorow to describe the worsening of the user experience on TikTok, but the word has now been used to explain the shifts of other companies in the digital space.

Although the report only offers policy recommendations, it represents an important step forward for consumer rights and protections and the eventual creation of legislation to tackle its main issues. In fact, the release included letters to both the Norwegian government and European institutions advising them to take action against anti-consumer practices. It also highlights a significant disparity between consumer protections in the United States and European countries like Norway, one that needs to be urgently addressed.

The European model vs America’s missteps

The Norwegian Consumer Council, also known as Forbrukerrådet, was founded in 1953 to protect consumer rights in the country. It is an independent body, though it does receive funding from the national government. It has also been a member of the European Consumer Organization (BEUC) since 1994, which represents dozens of consumer organizations across Europe that work together to shape policy across the continent.

The agency has previous experience opposing corporate behavior in the digital world. Several years ago, it released a report about loot boxes in video games, where it described the feature as “predatory” and called for several policy initiatives, including better regulation and transparency, and a ban on loot boxes in games that would likely be played by minors. 

Recently, European game rating board PEGI announced that it would raise the ratings of games with loot boxes to 16, while also expanding the ratings for games with other features, a move that reflects the work of consumer protection agencies.

The Forbrukerrådet’s American counterpart—the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)—has faced a drastic reduction in its role as a consumer watchdog due to financial cuts and, under the second Trump administration, even with federal judges having since ruled against some of these decisions. As a result, state governments have increasingly taken measures of consumer protection into their own hands, leading to uneven regulations across the country.

The CFPB was founded in 2010 in the aftermath of the Great Recession under the Dodd-Frank Act, which combined several agencies into one that “would protect families from unfair, deceptive, and abusive financial practices.” Since then, the agency “has ordered companies to provide $20 billion in relief payments to 195 million consumers and to pay $5 billion in fines.” However, President Trump’s decision to revoke these orders has prevented over $100 million in settlements to consumers, with the money being kept in corporate hands.   

The deprioritization of the consumer has also been reflected in legislation. In January, the House voted to preserve a “kill switch mandate” in all vehicles, requiring manufacturers to install driver monitoring technology in their vehicles. This law, part of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act, was maintained with all Democrats and some Republicans voting against defunding the measure. 

Supporters of the mandate, like Mothers Against Drunk Driving (MADD), contend that the implementation of the technology could save lives. Representative Thomas Massie (R-KY)—a critic who introduced the vote—argues that the technology could produce inaccurate assessments about a driver’s condition and restrict their control of the vehicle. Many opponents also cite privacy concerns, as the software could be used as a tool to surveil the driver.

Another concern that arises is the topic of ownership. Do consumers actually own their car if they can be deprived of its central function? Though all new cars will be equipped with the technology, what if a company decides to charge a separate cost for it, such as a subscription model that forces continuous payments to simply use a vehicle? This likely sets a dangerous precedent for the future of consumer rights in America.

A Call to Action

European countries have proved that consumer protections are both a possibility and a necessity in the modern age. More importantly, they provide a blueprint for the American government to follow. These goals require an expansion of the CFPB rather than a downsizing to meet the needs of current concerns like “enshittification”—and a commitment to ensure and protect consumer rights from corporate overreach. This issue affects all Americans and must be met with a bipartisan response 

***

This article was edited by Hayley Dunn.