ESPR Enforcement: How Market Surveillance Authorities Are Preparing for 2027
A practical overview of the inspection mechanisms, penalty frameworks, and cross-border coordination that EU authorities are building ahead of mandatory DPP compliance.
- **Market surveillance authorities** across the EU are hiring specialists and building digital infrastructure to verify DPP compliance at scale
- **Penalties will be harmonised** under ESPR Article 68, but Member States retain discretion on fine amounts—early drafts suggest up to 4% of annual turnover for serious violations
- **Risk-based inspections** will prioritise high-volume importers and brands with prior compliance issues
- **Cross-border coordination** through the EU Product Compliance Network will enable rapid information sharing and joint investigations
- **Self-assessment and audit trails** will become critical evidence during inspections—brands that cannot demonstrate due diligence face escalated scrutiny
The Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation (ESPR) entered into force in July 2024, but the real test begins in 2027 when the first sector-specific requirements—including mandatory Digital Product Passports—take effect. For fashion brands, this raises an urgent question: who will enforce these rules, and how?
The Enforcement Architecture Taking Shape#
Unlike previous ecodesign directives that focused on energy-related products with established testing protocols, ESPR covers a far broader scope. Market surveillance authorities (MSAs) must now verify claims about durability, recyclability, carbon footprint, and supply chain transparency—areas where many lack institutional expertise.
The European Commission allocated €15 million through the Single Market Programme to support MSA capacity building between 2024 and 2027 (European Commission, Single Market Programme Work Programme 2024). This funding is being channelled into three priorities:
- Digital verification tools capable of reading and validating DPP data carriers
- Training programmes for inspectors on textile-specific requirements
- Laboratory infrastructure for physical testing of material claims
How Key Markets Are Organising#
Each Member State designates its own MSAs, and approaches vary considerably. Here is how the largest textile markets are preparing:
| Country | Lead Authority | Focus Area | Notable Developments |
|---|---|---|---|
| Germany | Bundesanstalt für Materialforschung (BAM) | Technical verification, lab testing | Piloting automated DPP validation with customs systems (BAM, 2025) |
| France | DGCCRF | Consumer protection, greenwashing | Integrating ESPR checks into existing anti-fraud inspections |
| Italy | Guardia di Finanza + MISE | Import controls, SME compliance | Establishing textile-specific inspection units in Prato and Como |
| Spain | AEMPS + regional bodies | Decentralised model | Developing shared digital platform for MSA coordination |
| Netherlands | NVWA | Risk-based targeting | Using AI to flag high-risk shipments for priority inspection |
Germany's BAM is particularly advanced. In a 2025 pilot programme, inspectors successfully scanned DPP data carriers at Hamburg port and cross-referenced the data against supplier declarations in under 90 seconds per product (BAM Annual Report 2025).
The Penalty Framework#
ESPR Article 68 requires Member States to establish "effective, proportionate and dissuasive" penalties, but leaves specific amounts to national law. Based on draft legislation circulating in Germany, France, and Italy, the emerging consensus suggests:
- Administrative fines of €10,000–€100,000 for documentation failures
- Turnover-based penalties of up to 4% of annual revenue for systematic non-compliance or fraud
- Product withdrawal orders for items lacking valid DPPs
- Import bans for repeat offenders or non-cooperative third-country manufacturers
The turnover-based approach mirrors GDPR enforcement and signals that regulators view ESPR as equally significant. France's draft implementing decree explicitly references the GDPR penalty model as a template (French Ministry of Ecological Transition, Consultation Document, March 2026).
Risk-Based Inspection Priorities#
MSAs will not inspect every product. Limited resources mean enforcement will be risk-based, targeting:
- High-volume importers of textiles from outside the EU
- Brands with prior compliance failures under existing textile regulations
- Products making ambitious sustainability claims (carbon neutral, fully recyclable)
- Categories flagged by consumer complaints or competitor tip-offs
- Samples selected randomly to maintain general deterrence
The EU Product Compliance Network (EUPCN) will coordinate cross-border cases. If an Italian MSA finds a non-compliant product, it can alert counterparts across all 27 Member States within hours, triggering simultaneous market withdrawals (EUPCN Operating Guidelines, 2025).
What Inspectors Will Actually Check#
When an MSA requests your DPP data, they will verify:
- Accessibility: Can the data carrier be scanned? Does it link to a functioning DPP?
- Completeness: Are all mandatory fields populated according to the delegated act?
- Consistency: Does the DPP data match physical product labels and marketing claims?
- Traceability: Can you provide supporting documentation for key claims (e.g., supplier certificates, test reports)?
- Updates: Has the DPP been maintained as required (e.g., after product modifications)?
Brands that treat the DPP as a one-time compliance checkbox rather than a living document will struggle. Inspectors are being trained to request audit trails and probe inconsistencies.
Frequently asked questions
Will customs automatically block non-compliant imports?
Not initially. Customs authorities will have access to DPP verification tools, but ESPR does not mandate automated border controls. In practice, customs will flag suspicious shipments for MSA follow-up rather than rejecting them outright. However, Germany and the Netherlands are piloting tighter customs integration that could become the norm by 2028.
How will authorities handle small brands with limited compliance resources?
The Commission has acknowledged the burden on SMEs. MSAs are expected to issue warnings and allow remediation periods before imposing fines on first-time violations by smaller operators. However, "limited resources" is not a permanent defence—brands must demonstrate good-faith compliance efforts.
What happens if my supplier provides false data that ends up in my DPP?
You remain liable as the economic operator placing the product on the EU market. ESPR Article 22 requires brands to verify supplier information through due diligence. Maintaining documentation of your verification efforts is essential evidence if supplier fraud occurs.
Preparing Now Pays Off Later#
The brands that will navigate 2027 smoothly are those building compliance infrastructure today—not scrambling to retrofit systems under regulatory pressure.
This is where Trama helps. Our platform structures your supply chain data into DPP-ready formats, maintains audit trails that satisfy inspector requests, and flags inconsistencies before they become enforcement issues. When the first MSA scan arrives, you'll have the documentation to back up every claim.
Generate your collection's passports
From product sheet to compliant, hosted, print-ready QR codes.
Get started