Online betting in Poland is legal as long as it is run by entities that meet the statutory criteria. Pursuant to Article 5(1b) of the amended Polish Gambling Act of 19 November 2009 (Journal of Laws of 2018, item 165), the organisation of gambling games over the Internet, with the exception of pari-mutuel betting and promotional lotteries, is covered by the State monopoly.
This means that online bookmakers can still legally operate with a whole range of payment methods and are not subject to a state monopoly.
HOW TO OPEN A BOOKMAKING BUSINESS IN POLAND?
On the territory of Poland, only bookmakers who have obtained a licence issued by the Polish Ministry of Finance and thus have complied with the laws in force in Poland may accept bookmaker bets.
Legal bookmakers in Poland must meet a number of requirements in order to conduct sports betting. As stated in the Polish Gambling Act, bookmakers may offer their services in Poland only if the Polish Minister of Finance grants them a licence to conduct such activities.
KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI KG Legal attended a conference on Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR), including the deposit and deposit system, as well as the implementation of the Single Use Plastics (SUP) Directive.
EXTENDED PRODUCER RESPONSIBILITY (EPR)
EPR is a producer-focused mechanism that aims to reduce waste, particularly plastic waste, by increasing recycling and decreasing dependency on new raw materials. EPR moves the cost of managing post-use products partially or fully from local governments to the producing industry.
A key assumption of EPR is to consider the whole “life cycle” of products, i.e. from design, production and use to proper waste management. “Life cycle” includes designers, manufacturers, distributors (including product marketing), vendors, and customers/consumers. The EPR concept also assumes that appropriate economic incentives can turn waste into a valuable raw material, which should be thought about from the design stage.
Open Source is nothing else than free, unpaid software made available by programmers who create it. The idea comes from the end of XX century. By assumption, the Open Source software was to be created by cooperating programmers as a counterbalance for Closed Source software by distributing the base in the form of basic code free of charge for development in the sphere of science, education, law, production and many others. Open Source software products are designed to provide relatively inexpensive, user-friendly software that can be easily adapted to ones needs. Among the advantages of Open Source products are low initial costs, legality of such software, freedom to use and modify it according to user’s needs, development by a large community and faster detection and patching of vulnerabilities, free updates and faster software development. However, some of these advantages can turn into disadvantages. Development by a large community of programmers and a lack of vetting can result in people working on the program who want to introduce malware into the code. This means that Open Source software, on the one hand, is safe because of the large group of programmers working on it, but on the other hand, it can be dangerous for users for the same reason. Another disadvantage is the long-term costs of using Open Source software. These arise from situations where an immediate response to changes in the software is required and the need to call in a specialist in this area. In addition, the implementation of such software may entail the need to train employees in its use, which can also generate costs.
Vulnerability in Apache Log4
In mid-December 2021, a significant vulnerability was discovered in the security features of the Open Source Apache Log4 library, which was rated 10 on a 10-point criticality scale. Apache Log4 is a library for recording event logs by Java applications. It contains a mechanism allowing to search for requests using a special syntax without verification. The vulnerability is serious enough to allow cybercriminals to take control of a system very easily. It has already been exploited for attacks using malicious software to ‘mine’ cryptocurrencies. However, it is estimated that this vulnerability has been or will be exploited to attack the system by more malicious programs.
How to protect oneself from attacks targeting Open Source?
On 18 June 2021, the EDPB adopted internal document No. 04/2021 on the criteria for the territorial competence of supervisory authorities for the enforcement of Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive.
Problem of territorial application
In view of recent decisions adopted by some SAs that are competent to enforce Article 5(3) of the ePrivacy Directive[1], the EDPB has issued an Opinion aimed at establishing a uniform interpretation regulations of the territorial jurisdiction of SAs responsible for the enforcement of Article 5(3). Decisions adopted by SAs have shown that the territorial scope of application of the Directive may vary between different SAs, particularly where the controller/service provider is established in several Member States. Uncertainties on this issue could jeopardize decisions adopted by SAs across the Union.
Consumer opinions on a given product or service are a significant influence on sales on the Internet. Therefore, they should be as true and reliable as possible. This is to be helped by a new EU directive which expressly prohibits the posting of false opinions and paying for them, as well as misleading mechanisms for verifying the veracity of opinions.
UK Competition Authority (CMA)
In early January 2020, the CMA announced that as a result of the ongoing investigation, Facebook and eBay had formally committed to tackling the widespread trade in false and misleading product reviews on these platforms. In response to the authority’s concerns, the platforms have removed hundreds of such profiles and committed to putting in place mechanisms to prevent the offering and sale of such services. This should be considered a half success. The trade in fake product reviews is a symptom of a much more serious problem with the unfair manipulation of consumer buying behaviour. [1]
Directive on better enforcement and modernisation of EU consumer protection rules
