When you hear the term ‘addictive apps’, you probably think of doom-scrolling feeds or rigged games, not productivity tools or learning platforms. Apps like Strava and Duolingo, for instance, empower millions by bringing newfound gamification to areas like fitness and education. They use specific design features to motivate and positively enforce habits that improve users’ lives, with measurable outcomes to prove it.

Yet, under the Europe’s planned Digital Fairness Act (DFA), these and all gamified digital services would be considered inherently bad and subject to new regulation. The DFA’s goal, which is to enhance consumer protection in the digital environment, is one we can all get behind, but this one-size-fits-all approach to policing digital engagement is severely misguided and would be catastrophic to the very innovations that improve public health and well-being. 

We need clearer terms for what constitutes dangerous technology, and to regulate these tools with an approach that considers their intent and the effects on users’ overall well-being. This means asking a critical question of digital tools: what are those that seek to exploit versus empower? 

‘Addiction’ vs. Motivation

A core component of the Digital Fairness Act (DFA) aims to place additional regulations on technologies that use “addictive designs” or “dark patterns”; mechanisms such as rewards, streaks, timers, or discounts that encourage engagement or subscription.

While these measures are well-intended, to block users from these features means removing what makes digital experiences effective and meaningful. Features like streaks, badges, and rewards are not inherently harmful. In fact, they are fundamental to positive habit formation and user motivation.

For mission-driven apps that seek to improve people’s lives, whether helping them walk more, learn new skills, or meditate, these tools are essential to drive consistent engagement and long-term behavioral change. Without them, most users simply wouldn’t sustain the effort needed to create new habits.

Let’s not forget that the app economy is built on free access. Monetization through subscriptions and in-app purchases is what allows users to enjoy more flexible, high-quality services without upfront cost. We wouldn’t prevent a gym from rewarding members who come regularly, or offering discounts to those who sign up for additional coaching. So why would we forbid digital platforms from using similar motivational levers to help people take better care of themselves?

The goal of regulation shouldn’t be to eliminate motivation altogether, but rather to distinguish between exploitation and empowerment. The difference lies in intent: whether a design drives users toward harmful dependency, or toward meaningful progress.

Limiting Gamified Apps Risks Blocking Solutions to Our Biggest Crises

While protecting users from potentially harmful digital loops is essential, a blanket restriction on gamified designs would also limit our ability to tackle some of the most pressing social and environmental challenges at scale. The efficacy of incentive-based digital nudges in driving healthy and environmentally-friendly behavior at the population level has been backed by scientific studies. 

For instance, new research by 6T found that digital nudging apps significantly change exercise and mobility behavior in the long-term, motivating users to walk over 20% more, while decreasing the number of car trips taken. These findings represent the strongest evidence to date that gamified apps unlock new digital solutions for sustainable mobility at scale. To impose restrictions on features essential to positive behavior formation would mean stifling innovation that addresses critical issues in public health, limiting our access to tools that otherwise drive greater health equity and accessibility.

It is also worth noting that increased user engagement does not necessarily equate to longer screen times. At WeWard, for instance, users spend only a few minutes per day on the app, but hours walking outdoors. Further, those who maintain longer streaks are more likely to increase their daily step count over time. Gamification here is not a source of digital dependency; it is the very mechanism that helps people disconnect and re-engage with the physical world. When used responsibly, it can encourage people to move more, or spend less time online. 

Europe has long been a hub for creativity in gaming, entertainment, and mobile technology; overreaching regulation could discourage entrepreneurs from building the next wave of positive-impact digital platforms.

The Right Way to Regulate

To be clear, consumer protection is and always has been of critical importance at WeWard. We fully support the EU’s leadership in establishing strong privacy frameworks like GDPR, a landmark achievement that has shown how privacy by design can coexist with, and even enhance, product performance.

Our mission is deeply rooted in user well-being: to keep people moving and help them lead healthier, more active lives. But to fulfill that mission, it’s crucial to distinguish between addiction and empowerment. They may share some mechanics, but they serve fundamentally different purposes and outcomes.

The goals outlined in the DFA consultation are laudable, but the proposed scope risks collateral damage that could risk shutting down the very tools that help millions live healthier, smarter, and more sustainable lives, while also undermining Europe’s capacity to build the next generation of tech leaders. I encourage my fellow leaders in the industry to speak out and advocate for similar innovations that are helping us build a brighter future ahead.