The efficacy of the “future-proof” Unfair Commercial Practices Directive against dark patterns is undermined by the fragmented regulatory landscape introduced by the Digital Services Act. Article 25 DSA creates four weaknesses: a general prohibition that is vague compared to the UCPD’s detailed framework; a narrow subjective scope that excludes many online traders; an exclusion clause in Article 25(2) that replaces cumulative application with an opaque hierarchy; and slow soft-law mechanisms for updating the law in response to new dark patterns. To resolve these contradictions, this article proposes four targeted reforms: first, repurposing Article 25(1) DSA as an institutional gateway for DSA authorities to apply substantive UCPD rules using the stronger DSA sanctions and enforcement regime; second, extending the prohibition’s scope to all intermediary service providers; third, the repeal of Article 25(2) DSA; and fourth, granting the Commission the power to update the UCPD blacklist via delegated acts for a swift response to emerging dark patterns. These reforms, particularly in combination, offer a coherent, future-proof regulatory framework that restores the centrality of the UCPD, preserves the innovations of the DSA, and equips EU law to address both current and emerging forms of dark patterns.

Technology neutrality is a guiding principle of the European Union’s technology regulation, stating that legislation should not favour or discriminate against any particular technology, but rather focus on the effects or functions of technologies broadly. This article examines the principle as a way to future-proof regulation by allowing legislation to adapt to the changes in technology over time. Effects of technology neutrality have not been sufficiently analysed in the novel context of regulation of artificial intelligence, which arguably poses more significant societal risks than telecommunications, where the principle first evolved. To address this gap in research, this article analyses whether the technology neutral nature of the EU’s Artificial Intelligence Act (AI Act) renders it more future-proof. It identifies three main factors that affect future-proofness of the AI Act in light of technology neutrality: definition of AI, the risk-based approach and its enforcement mechanisms. The findings indicate that the AI Act’s deviations from technology neutrality, including specific provisions for general-purpose AI models significantly improved its scope and future-proofness. Thus, technology neutrality and future-proof regulation should not be treated synonymously, and strict adherence to neutrality may even obscure the political choices and democratic agency essential for AI regulation.