image: ©yaom | iStock

In today’s digital environment, our attention is not just a bargaining chip; it is the product. Every swipe, scroll, like, pause, and click is captured, analysed, shaped, and monetised. Tech platforms compete relentlessly for human attention, optimising design systems not to empower us, but to keep us engaged, triggered, and returning for more. (1) This business model has profound implications for mental health and for democratic resilience. Yet, regulation still struggles to catch up.

The EU’s proposed Digital Fairness Act (DFA) represents an opportunity to address this imbalance. Too often, digital regulation has been framed around consumer protection as mainly economic: preventing financial loss or unfair pricing. But as mental health organisations and researchers have repeatedly shown, (2) digital unfairness goes far beyond the wallet and competitiveness. It affects stress levels, autonomy, self-esteem, wellbeing, and our fundamental rights.

To protect people, especially young people and those experiencing vulnerable situations, we must recognise the psychological reality of the digital economy: users’ attention and emotions are systematically steered for profit.

Mental Health Europe’s recent work on digitalisation (3) highlights both opportunities and risks in a rapidly evolving technological landscape. Social media and digital platforms can foster connections, peer support, and access to information and mental health tools, as well as provide an affordable entry point to service providers. Yet, research also confirms the harmful effects of hyper-connected environments, persuasive design, algorithmic amplification of distressing content, constant profiling, and targeted advertising. (4)

Digital environments are deliberately engineered to exploit behavioural psychology: variable rewards, auto-play, infinite scrolling, frictionless nudges, (5) and dopamine-driven feedback loops. From this, results: Addictive user patterns, fatigue, anxiety, decision paralysis, disrupted sleep, poor body image, and increased loneliness.

Many groups in vulnerable situations, like young people, individuals with mental health distress, and socio- economically disadvantaged communities, carry the greatest burden. Those least able to opt out are most exposed to manipulative design and targeted advertising practices that feed on insecurity and distress. This is not simply a design flaw; it is the core business model.

The DFA, alongside the Digital Services Act, DMA, AI Act, or European Health Data Space, show that Europe recognises the need to protect autonomy and dignity in digital spaces. But for meaningful change, the DFA must go further and address the psychosocial harms of digital manipulation.

We need a shift similar to the evolution in public health thinking on tobacco or gambling. The question is no longer whether these systems harm mental health; the evidence is clear. The question is how we regulate platforms whose profitability depends on behaviours that undermine wellbeing.

A modern digital fairness framework must therefore:

• Recognise mental health harm as consumer harm
• Restrict manipulative and addictive design, especially for minors
• Ensure transparency and accountability in algorithmic systems
• Enforce strong privacy and data minimisation to prevent profiling-based exploitation
• Build in meaningful user choice, friction, and rights- based safeguards
• Promote accessible digital literacy and wellbeing strategies
• Include people with lived experience in policy design and oversight

To protect mental health in the digital age, we must place technology within a human-rights and psychosocial framework, where wellbeing, dignity, participation, and autonomy guide design and governance. Technology must serve the users, not the other way around. The EU has shown global leadership in data protection and online safety. With the Digital Fairness Act, it now has a chance to lead again by protecting not only the wallets
of consumers but also their wellbeing and dignity.

Digitalisation is not neutral, nor unbiased. It can deepen inequalities or reduce them. It can promote autonomy or erode it. It can empower individuals and communities or concentrate power in the hands of a few.

If Europe wants to build a digital future that promotes thriving lives, democratic resilience, and fair participation, it must lead not only in technology but in protecting human rights within it.

1. Bhargava VR, Velasquez M. Ethics of the Attention Economy: The Problem of Social Media Addiction. Business Ethics Quarterly. 2021;31(3):321-359. doi:10.1017/beq.2020.32
2. Dresp-Langley B, Hutt A. Digital Addiction and Sleep. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health. 2022; 19(11):6910. https://doi.org/10.3390/ijerph19116910
3. https://www.mentalhealtheurope.org/what-we-do/digitalisation/
4. Boroon, L., Abedin, B., & Erfani, E. (2021). The Dark Side of Using Online Social Networks: A Review of Individuals’ Negative Experiences. Journal of Global Information Management (JGIM), 29(6), 1-21. https://doi.org/10.4018/ JGIM.20211101.oa34
5. https://lab.co.uk/news-and-insights/what-is-nudge-theory-and-how-can-nudges-improve-digital-experiences