A global consumer movement is coalescing around a fight against the deliberate, gradual degradation of the digital products and services that permeate modern life, a process now widely known as “enshittification”.
At the forefront of this push is the Norwegian Consumer Council (Forbrukerrådet), which last month launched what is believed to be the first international campaign targeting the phenomenon. It has united over 70 trade unions, human rights groups, and consumer organisations across Europe and the United States in a direct appeal to policymakers in 14 countries.
A Three-Stage Race to the Bottom
The term, coined by author and activist Cory Doctorow, describes a strategic business model rather than accidental decline. As outlined by Doctorow, enshittification typically unfolds in three stages. First, platforms offer excellent, often subsidised services to attract and lock in users. Second, once a user base is secured, the platform pivots to favour business customers—like advertisers—over those users, flooding feeds with ads. Finally, the platform extracts maximum value by exploiting both groups for shareholder profit, leading to a stark drop in quality.
This decay is now familiar to millions: social media feeds overrun with scams and sponsored content; software updates that inexplicably slow down phones; customer service chatbots that frustrate rather than help; and connected devices, from printers to cars, that see their functionality restricted or become “bricked” after purchase to push new subscriptions.
“We wanted to show that you wouldn’t accept this in the analogue world,” said Finn Lützow-Holm Myrstad, the Norwegian Consumer Council’s Director of Digital Policy. “But this is happening every day in our digital products and services.”
A Call for Legislative Arms
The coalition’s campaign, titled “Another internet is possible”, argues this decline is a result of policy failure, not inevitability. In coordinated letters, they have urged transatlantic lawmakers to take specific, corrective action.
Their demands include giving consumers stronger rights to control, adapt, and repair the products they own; making it easier to move data and switch services through interoperability; and rigorously enforcing existing consumer and data protection laws. They also advocate using public procurement to foster alternatives to dominant tech firms and call for a strong “Digital Fairness Act” to rebalance power between users and providers.
“It’s not too late to turn the tide,” Myrstad stated. “Services don’t need to be enshittified if we have real competition, if you can choose as a consumer which services you use, and if the market will better regulate all these practices.”
The campaign is backed by an 80-page report, “Breaking Free: Pathways to a Fair Technological Future”, which details how this degradation became the norm. Myrstad, who also chairs the Digital Committee of the Transatlantic Consumer Dialogue, acknowledged the challenge of taking on “big tech”, likening it to a David vs. Goliath battle. “But in that story,” he noted, “David won.”
Regulatory Winds of Change
The campaign aligns with a significant shift in the regulatory landscape, particularly in the European Union. The bloc’s landmark Digital Markets Act (DMA), which came into force in March, directly targets so-called “gatekeeper” platforms like Google, Apple, and Meta with rules designed to ensure fair competition and interoperability. While some critics argue the DMA has initially created user friction, consumer groups like the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) support it as a vital tool to rebalance market power.
Further EU measures include the Digital Services Act (DSA), tackling illegal content online, and an upcoming Right-to-Repair Directive, which from July 31 will mandate that manufacturers allow third-party repairs. A proposed Digital Fairness Act seeks to address deceptive design and addictive patterns.
This proactive stance contrasts with the United States’ approach, which still relies on older antitrust laws like the Sherman Act, leading to slower, case-by-case litigation that has struggled to curb market concentration effectively.
Public Resonance and the Path Ahead
The Norwegian campaign has struck a powerful chord. Its absurdist video, featuring an “enshittificator” whose job is to surreptitiously ruin physical objects, has garnered millions of views online, with thousands of comments expressing frustration and support. The council’s report was downloaded over 6,000 times.
“We’ve never experienced anything like it, it really strikes a nerve with people,” Myrstad said. “There seems to be an incredible amount of support to do something about this.”
Doctorow, meanwhile, continues to advocate for technical and legal solutions, emphasising the “right of exit”—enabling users to leave a platform without losing their data—and the “end-to-end principle”, where platforms simply pass data along without manipulation. His work, and the growing chorus from civil society groups like Access Now and the Electronic Frontier Foundation, underscores that the fight against enshittification is moving from online complaint to organised policy demand.
As the coalition’s letters make clear, their fundamental argument is that the degraded digital experience is a choice, not a law of nature. The question now is whether policymakers on both sides of the Atlantic will heed the call to rewrite the rules.
