Digital markets have deepened the interaction between competition and consumer policy. As this paper has shown, many of the practices shaping digital markets (such as personalisation, misleading or deceptive online choice architecture practices and certain exclusionary strategies) can simultaneously affect consumer decision making and competitive dynamics. These developments blur the traditional boundaries between the two policy domains. While competition policy focusses on preserving effective market structures and rivalry, consumer policy aims to ensure that individuals can make informed and autonomous choices. In digital environments, however, the same conduct may often impact both objectives at once.
The analysis presented suggests that in some cases neither framework may be sufficient to capture the full implications of digital market conduct. Competition law may address structural market distortions but can face practical challenges in detecting and remedying practices that primarily affect consumer agency. Consumer protection tools, by contrast, may provide more immediate and flexible responses to practices that mislead consumers, even in the absence of demonstrable market power. At the same time, remedies that focus solely on individual consumer harm may not fully address longer-term effects on market dynamics and innovation.
More recently, developments in artificial intelligence are making more evident the need for the two policies to interact. AI‑driven transactions have the potential to enhance market functioning by improving the matching of supply and demand, facilitating more effective price comparisons, and reducing consumers’ shopping and search costs. At the same time, these developments raise important enforcement questions for both competition and consumer policy. Among the most pressing issues are: what degree of transparency is required in the deployment of AI agents; will AI amplify existing consumer biases or help overcome them; and how their widespread use may reshape competitive dynamics as well as consumer agency? These considerations underscore the need for continued reflection and further research in the two policy areas, as AI systems become increasingly embedded in market interactions.
For these reasons, a more integrated perspective when dealing with conduct in digital markets may be beneficial. Concepts such as consumer agency provide a useful analytical bridge between the two policies, highlighting how the ability of consumers to make meaningful choices is closely linked to effective competition. While enforcement will likely continue to rely on distinct legal frameworks, greater co-ordination between competition and consumer authorities can help ensure that both the structural and behavioural dimensions of digital markets are adequately considered. Remedy design and implementation represent an important area where insights from both policy domains can complement one another, combining competition law’s ability to address market-wide dynamics with consumer protection’s focus on restoring informed and fair consumer choice.
Looking ahead, maintaining dialogue, co-operation and analytical exchange between both policy communities may help authorities better understand digital market dynamics and design interventions that more effectively protect both consumers and the competitive process.