The dynamic development of the computer games market has led to a significant change in the monetization models used by game producers and publishers. The traditional sales model, based on a one-time purchase of a product by the consumer, has been largely replaced by solutions based on long-term user engagement and generating revenue through micropayments (microtransactions). Mechanisms known as loot boxes, consisting in the paid purchase of virtual packages with random content.

Although initially perceived as a means of enhancing gameplay, this mechanism is currently the subject of intense legal, economic, and social debate. It is increasingly being pointed out that the design of loot boxes utilizes psychological mechanisms similar to those that have been present in traditional gambling games for many years. The random nature of the reward, the uncertainty of the outcome, the “near miss” effect, the limited availability of certain items, and the use of dynamic animations intended to enhance the user’s emotional engagement all contribute to the blurring of the line between entertainment and gambling mechanisms.

Additional controversy stems from the fact that the vast majority of modern games using loot boxes are also aimed at minors. Unlike traditional gambling games, participation in these mechanisms does not require a specific age or meeting specific formal requirements. In practice, this means that random monetization mechanisms are also used by children and adolescents, who, due to their stage of psychological development, are particularly susceptible to the influence of behavioral design techniques and so-called dark patterns).

In recent years, the issue of loot boxes has ceased to be analyzed solely through the prism of gambling law. Regulations concerning consumer protection, digital services, and child safety in the online environment are gaining increasing importance. Discussions at the European Union level indicate that the future legal framework may be based not only on classic definitions of games of chance but also on instruments to combat manipulative practices and ensure a high level of protection for consumers using digital services.

At the national level, the problem remains equally relevant. Polish lawmakers have not yet decided to introduce a separate definition of loot boxes into the Gambling Act of 19 November 2009. This does not mean, however, that these mechanisms remain entirely outside the scope of existing regulations. In practice, administrative bodies assess each specific business model on a case-by-case basis, analyzing whether its design meets the statutory definition of gambling. At the same time, the development of the secondary market for trading in virtual items, particularly so-called skin gambling , is creating new interpretative challenges that the legislature did not anticipate when enacting the current regulations.

The changes introduced by the PEGI rating system in 2026 provided an additional impetus for reassessing the current regulations. The revised rules for classifying games with paid random mechanisms confirm the growing awareness of the risks associated with the use of loot boxes, especially for underage users. Although the PEGI rating is not a source of generally applicable law, its practical importance for the European market remains significant and may influence both the distribution of games and the future direction of legislative changes.

The purpose of this article is to analyze the current legal status of loot boxes under Polish and European Union law, taking into account recent regulatory changes, the practices of administrative bodies, and the experiences of selected European countries. Particular attention will be paid to whether the current regulations effectively protect consumers from mechanisms based on randomness and whether the current regulatory model meets the challenges of the modern digital economy.

The essence of loot boxes and their functioning models

The concept of a lootbox has not yet been defined in either Polish or European Union law. However, in the literature and by public institutions, it is generally accepted that a lootbox is a mechanism whereby the user obtains, for a fee or free of charge, a virtual package containing items whose contents remain unknown until opened. A characteristic element of this solution is randomness – the user has no influence on the item they receive, and the probability of obtaining individual rewards is determined by the game developer or platform operator.

At the definitional level, however, it should be emphasized that the term “lootbox” encompasses a wide variety of business models, the legal assessment of which cannot be uniform. Public debate often equates all mechanisms based on randomness with gambling, while from a legal perspective, individual solutions differ in both their economic structure and the degree of risk to the consumer. It is precisely this diversity that means that assessing the compliance of lootboxes with applicable regulations requires an analysis of the specific operational model, not just the presence of a random element.

The most classic model occurs in games where lootbox content is limited solely to cosmetic items, such as skins , animations, character outfits, or visual effects. These items do not affect gameplay or increase the player’s chances of success. They are intended solely for aesthetic purposes, allowing the user to personalize the appearance of their character or equipment. Such solutions were long considered relatively safe from a consumer protection perspective, but the development of secondary markets for trading virtual items has significantly changed their economic significance.

A good example is the Counter-Strike series, where weapon skins initially served only a visual purpose. Over time, however, a robust secondary market developed around these items, allowing them to be sold for real money. Consequently, the value of some virtual items began to reach several thousand, or even several dozen thousand, and in exceptional cases, several hundred thousand euros. In practice, this means that a randomly acquired item can have a tangible financial value, even though the game developer itself does not officially allow for its sale. The existence of an external market is one of the main arguments raised in the discussion on the classification of such mechanisms as potentially akin to gambling.

Loot boxes used in sports games, such as EA SPORTS FC Ultimate Team, are of a different nature. In this model, users purchase virtual packs containing player cards, coaches, or other team items. Unlike skins in games like Counter-Strike, acquired items directly impact gameplay. Acquiring rare players can increase a team’s competitiveness and improve player performance. Although the developer publishes information regarding the probability of receiving rewards in a given category, the user still doesn’t know the contents of a specific pack at the time of purchase, and the decision to purchase is based on a random mechanism.

Yet another model is found in so-called gacha games, extremely popular, especially in Asian markets and in the mobile gaming segment. This mechanism is based on randomization of characters, equipment, or other items necessary for further progression in the game. A characteristic feature of gacha systems is their close connection to long-term user monetization. Players are encouraged to repeatedly make micropayments to obtain exceptionally rare characters or items, the probability of obtaining which can be extremely low. The literature indicates that these solutions most fully utilize the mechanisms of behavioral economics and the psychology of addiction.

However, the most controversial are third-party platforms that enable the trading of virtual items and participation in games of chance that use items from video games as a form of currency. These services operate independently of game developers, leveraging the existing market for skins or other digital goods to organize mechanisms reminiscent of classic casino games. Users deposit funds or use their virtual items to participate in lotteries, roulette, duels, or other games based on chance. Unlike traditional loot boxes offered by game producers, the participant’s goal is not only to obtain a specific item but often to achieve a tangible economic benefit resulting from the possibility of reselling it.

From a legal perspective, the differences between the presented models are crucial. Not every mechanism employing an element of randomness automatically leads to its classification as gambling. Factors that should be assessed include, first and foremost, the potential for financial gain, the existence of a secondary market, the method of financing participation, the possibility of withdrawing funds, and the actual impact of randomness on achieving a specific outcome. In practice, this means a case-by-case analysis of the specific business model, rather than adopting a uniform classification for all types of loot boxes .

This approach is also reflected in the practice of many European countries. Both administrative bodies and courts are increasingly moving away from abstract assessments of the lootbox mechanism itself, focusing instead on analyzing their actual operation and impact on consumer interests. Consequently, the current legal debate no longer revolves around the question of whether lootboxes as a category should be considered gambling, but rather which monetization models justify their inclusion in a specific regulatory regime.

Loot boxes and the definition of gambling in Polish law

Assessing the compliance of lootbox mechanisms with Polish law requires, above all, an analysis of the provisions of the Gambling Act of 19 November 2009. Although the legislature has not yet decided to introduce a separate definition of lootboxes, this does not mean that these mechanisms remain outside the scope of applicable regulations. On the contrary, in practice, their legal classification depends on whether the specific operating model meets the criteria for one of the games specified in the Act.

The basic premise of the Gambling Act is to subject activities in which the outcome depends on chance to a specific regime, and the participant gains the opportunity to obtain a specific financial or material benefit. The Act does not use the term “lootbox” because it was enacted at a time when modern computer game monetization models were practically nonexistent. This necessitates a functional interpretation, taking into account the economic nature of the mechanism in question, not just its name or the technical solutions adopted by the game developer.

A key element of most loot boxes is undoubtedly randomness. The user making the purchase neither knows the contents of the package nor has the ability to influence the outcome of the drawing. However, the mere presence of a random element is not sufficient to classify a given mechanism as gambling. In practice, the nature of the prize received by the participant and the ability to assign it a real economic value are equally important.

This is where a fundamental difference between classic loot boxes offered by game developers and the mechanisms used by third-party platforms for trading virtual items becomes apparent. If the item obtained through a draw has a purely aesthetic function and cannot be legally exchanged for cash or used outside of the game environment, the arguments for classifying such a mechanism as gambling are significantly weaker. The situation is different when the item is de facto a property that can be freely traded on the secondary market, yielding a real financial benefit.

In practice, the greatest controversy surrounds so-called skin gambling. In this model, users use items obtained in-game as a means of participating in subsequent games of chance organized by third parties. Skins, which were originally purely cosmetic, are beginning to function as a kind of digital currency with measurable economic value. This mechanism leads to a situation in which participants risk losing items of real-world value in exchange for the opportunity to win an even more valuable reward. This structure bears a much greater resemblance to classic gambling games than the traditional micropayment systems used by game developers.

At the same time, caution should be exercised before drawing too far-reaching conclusions. The mere existence of a secondary market does not automatically mean that every loot box should be classified as gambling. From a legal perspective, a case-by-case analysis of the entire business model is necessary, including, among other things, the method of acquiring virtual items, the possibility of their resale, the role of the game producer, the scope of control over the trade in digital assets, and the actual economic significance of the rewards. Consequently, two mechanisms utilizing an identical element of randomness may be subject to entirely different legal assessments.

This position is also reflected in the practice of Polish administrative bodies. To date, there has been no established practice of automatically classifying all loot boxes as gambling. Authorities focus instead on analyzing specific business models and assessing whether they meet the requirements of applicable regulations. This approach reflects the nature of the Gambling Act, which uses functional definitions, leaving authorities considerable scope for assessing individual factual circumstances.

In this context, the practice of entering certain online platforms into the Register of Domains Used to Offer Gambling Games in Contravention of the Act has become particularly significant. However, such an entry does not mean that all platforms utilizing the element of randomness conduct illegal activities. Each decision is preceded by an assessment of the specific operational model of the given service. Consequently, it cannot be assumed that the lootbox mechanism itself has been deemed illegal in Poland. It is not the abstract technical structure that is being assessed, but rather its practical application.

Under current law, it seems more appropriate to ask not whether loot boxes per se constitute gambling, but which of their numerous operating models demonstrate characteristics that justify the application of the provisions of the Gambling Act. This approach avoids oversimplification and better reflects the reality of the digital market, where solutions with widely varying levels of risk to consumers coexist.

At the same time, it should be noted that even if a given mechanism does not meet the criteria for gambling within the meaning of the Act, this does not mean there is a lack of legal oversight. Modern regulations increasingly refer to consumer protection instruments, counteracting manipulative practices, and ensuring the safety of children using digital services. Therefore, analysis of loot boxes cannot be limited solely to gambling law. Regulations regarding consumer protection, digital services, and designing interfaces in accordance with fair trading principles are gaining increasing importance, and in many cases, they may prove to be a more effective tool for protecting users than traditional gambling law instruments.

Loot boxes as a challenge to consumer protection law and the regulation of digital services

Although the debate surrounding loot boxes has for many years focused primarily on gambling law, a shift in regulatory direction is now becoming increasingly apparent, both at the national and European Union levels. Contemporary challenges related to random mechanisms in computer games concern not only the classification of specific models as gambling, but also the compliance of the practices employed with the principles of consumer protection, the protection of minors, and the fair design of digital services.

This change is primarily due to the development of the digital economy. The mechanisms used by game producers are increasingly based not on traditional product sales, but on long-term user engagement and gradual increase in spending through appropriately designed psychological solutions. This phenomenon is referred to in the literature as behavioral monetization, or monetization that leverages knowledge from cognitive psychology and behavioral economics. The goal of such mechanisms is not simply to facilitate a purchase, but to create an environment that encourages users to make subsequent purchasing decisions impulsively or emotionally.

Of particular importance in this regard are so-called dark patterns, referred to in Polish literature as manipulative or deceptive design patterns. These design solutions exploit the workings of human perception and decision-making processes to induce behaviors that are beneficial to the entrepreneur, but not necessarily aligned with the consumer’s true interests. In the case of loot boxes, these can take a variety of forms – from counters counting down the time until the end of a promotion, through messages about the limited availability of specific rewards, to elaborate animations that enhance the emotional experience of opening the packages.

These mechanisms are not coincidental. Psychological research indicates that a reward system based on a variable ratio reinforcement schedule is one of the most effective ways to maintain long-term user engagement. This same mechanism has been used for many years in classic gambling games, where the unpredictability of rewards maintains a high level of motivation for subsequent attempts. In the case of loot boxes, this mechanism is transferred to the computer gaming environment and combined with an attractive audiovisual setting and the ability to immediately make another purchase.

From the perspective of consumer protection law, a crucial question is whether the use of such solutions could lead to a violation of traders’ obligations arising from provisions on fair market practices. It should be noted that contemporary EU regulations increasingly place greater emphasis not only on the content of information provided to consumers, but also on the design of digital interfaces. Therefore, the subject of assessment is increasingly not the product or service itself, but rather the architecture of the purchasing process and the impact of the interface on the user’s freedom of decision-making.

Underage users are particularly important here. Both the European Commission and the European Parliament have repeatedly stated that children using digital services require a higher level of protection than the average consumer. This stems from their limited ability to assess economic risk and their greater susceptibility to persuasive techniques used by businesses. In practice, this means that solutions acceptable to adult users may be deemed disproportionate or unfair if they are primarily targeted at children and adolescents.

The importance of this issue has increased following the entry into force of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 on the Digital Single Market (Digital Services Act – DSA). Although this act does not explicitly regulate lootbox mechanisms, it establishes a number of obligations regarding the design of digital services and the protection of users from practices that may negatively impact their decision-making autonomy. In particular, the DSA emphasizes the need to ensure a high level of protection for minors and limit the use of solutions that exploit the vulnerabilities of specific user groups. This trend indicates that future assessments of the legality of lootboxes will increasingly be conducted not only through the lens of gambling law but also taking into account consumer protection standards applicable in the digital environment.

In parallel, the European Commission is working on a legislative package known as Digital Fairness, which aims to adapt EU consumer protection regulations to the realities of the digital economy. Issues under review include manipulative design patterns, interface design that exploits user vulnerability, and mechanisms that exert excessive psychological pressure during purchasing decisions. Although the legislative work has not yet been completed, the direction of the proposed changes clearly indicates that future regulations may also cover monetization mechanisms used in video games.

The European Parliament also highlighted the need to enhance the protection of minors in its resolution of 26 November 2025 on the protection of children online. The document indicated that mechanisms such as loot boxes, in-game currencies, and other systems based on chance should be subject to special scrutiny from the perspective of protecting children from addictive and manipulative digital practices. While the resolution is non-binding, it provides an important political signal indicating the direction of future legislative action at the European Union level.

A separate but crucial element of the modern user protection system is the PEGI age rating. Starting in 2026, this system will adopt a more stringent approach to games featuring paid random mechanisms, recognizing them as solutions requiring a higher age rating. While the PEGI rating is not a source of law and does not in itself determine the legality of specific monetization models, it reflects a growing consensus on the need to provide greater protection for minors from mechanisms that utilize randomness and behavioral design techniques.

The above circumstances lead to the conclusion that the future of loot box regulation will likely be shaped primarily by regulations concerning consumer protection and digital services, rather than solely by traditional gambling law instruments. While the Gambling Act focuses on the qualification of specific business models, contemporary EU regulations increasingly assess the design of digital services and their impact on the autonomy of user decisions. Consequently, assessing the legality of loot boxes in the future will require comprehensive consideration of both gambling law and regulations concerning consumer protection, digital services, and children’s rights.

Approach of selected European countries to regulating loot boxes – a comparative analysis

The lack of a uniform definition of loot boxes in European Union law has led individual member states to develop different models for regulating this phenomenon. These differences concern not only the legal classification of random-based mechanisms but, above all, the assessment of the risks loot boxes pose to consumers, especially minors. As a result, the European Union currently boasts both countries adopting a very restrictive approach and jurisdictions that prefer to analyze individual business models rather than create separate statutory regulations.

Belgium has taken the most stringent stance for many years. The Belgian Gaming Commission has determined that certain lootbox mechanisms meet the criteria for gambling if the participant pays a fee, the outcome depends on chance, and the reward represents a specific economic value. Consequently, some game producers have decided to remove paid lootboxes from the Belgian market or significantly limit their functionality. This solution was primarily preventative in nature and aimed at limiting children and adolescents’ exposure to mechanisms that utilize randomness as a monetization tool .

The Dutch experience was different. For many years, the Dutch supervisory authority took a similar stance to the Belgian one, deeming certain lootbox models to be in violation of gambling regulations. The dispute concerned one of the most popular monetization models used by Electronic Arts became the subject of years of administrative and court proceedings. However, the final rulings demonstrated that the classification of loot boxes cannot be based solely on the presence of an element of randomness, but requires consideration of the overall economic structure of the game, the method of trading virtual goods, and the actual potential for financial gain for the user. The Dutch experience thus highlighted the difficulties associated with applying traditional definitions of gambling law to new business models operating in the digital economy.

At the opposite extreme is the approach adopted in Poland. To date, Polish lawmakers have not decided to create separate regulations regarding loot boxes or introduce a statutory definition. This means that the assessment of individual models is based on applicable gambling regulations and an analysis of the specific factual circumstances. This approach provides administrative bodies with significant interpretative flexibility, but also limits predictability for businesses operating in the digital market.

The practice of Polish authorities indicates that a functional assessment of the specific business model is crucial. In the case of platforms enabling the use of virtual items as a means of participating in games of chance, authorities may apply the instruments provided for in the Gambling Act, including entry into the Register of Domains Used to Offer Gambling Games Contrary to the Act. However, this does not automatically mean that all loot boxes used in computer games are illegal. The Polish model is therefore based on an analysis of the economic impact of a given solution, not on an abstract assessment of the randomness mechanism itself.

An analysis of the solutions adopted in individual countries leads to the conclusion that what is becoming increasingly important is not simply classifying loot boxes as gambling, but rather protecting consumers from the psychological mechanisms that lead to excessive spending or compulsive behavior. Therefore, many countries are beginning to perceive the loot box problem as an issue that goes beyond traditional gambling law and requires the use of instruments appropriate to consumer law and digital market regulation.

This approach also aligns with actions undertaken at the European Union level. The European Commission and the European Parliament increasingly point out that the fragmentation of national regulatory models can lead to uneven levels of user protection in the digital single market. The global nature of game producers’ operations means that businesses operate simultaneously in multiple markets, adapting their business models to the most stringent requirements in force in individual countries. In practice, this means that future legal solutions will likely aim for greater harmonization of consumer protection standards at the EU level.

However, this doesn’t mean a complete ban on loot boxes is necessary. A much more likely approach would be to introduce requirements regarding the transparency of random mechanisms, the publication of actual reward probabilities, more effective age verification of users, and restrictions on the use of solutions that exploit the vulnerability of children and adolescents to persuasive techniques. Such a regulatory model would preserve the possibility of using micropayments as a legal method of financing computer games while simultaneously strengthening consumer protection.

From the perspective of Polish law, the experiences of other European countries have significant interpretative significance. They demonstrate that mechanisms operating at the intersection of gambling and digital services cannot be assessed solely through the lens of classic legal constructs developed for traditional casinos or lotteries. The development of the digital economy requires a more comprehensive approach, taking into account both the economic significance of virtual goods and the impact of interface design on consumer decisions. Consequently, the future model for regulating loot boxes will likely be based on a combination of instruments from gambling law, consumer protection law, and regulations governing digital services, rather than the exclusive application of one of these legal regimes.

Conclusions de lege lata and postulates de lege ferenda

The analysis leads to the conclusion that current Polish law does not allow for a uniform legal classification of all lootbox mechanisms. Despite the growing number of voices calling for the recognition of lootboxes as a form of gambling, the current legal status does not provide a basis for automatically subjecting this entire product category to the provisions of the Gambling Act of 19 November 2009. Each assessment requires consideration of the actual operation of the specific business model, the nature of the prize, the potential for further turnover, and the economic impact of user participation in the random mechanism.

This doesn’t mean, however, that the current regulations remain entirely insufficient. With respect to some models operating on the market – particularly platforms that use virtual items as a means of participating in games of chance or enabling their exchange for cash – current regulations may be applicable. The practice of administrative bodies to date demonstrates that the Gambling Act remains an instrument that helps counteract the riskiest forms of activity, especially when virtual goods begin to function as an equivalent of money or property.

At the same time, it’s important to note that the vast majority of modern loot boxes don’t pose a classic gambling law problem. Their primary purpose isn’t to organize games of chance in the traditional sense, but to create a monetization model that leverages psychological mechanisms that increase user propensity to make subsequent purchases. For this reason, the current regulatory debate is increasingly shifting from gambling law toward consumer protection law and the regulation of digital services.

It seems that this is precisely the direction that Polish lawmakers should also adopt. Attempting to classify all loot boxes as gambling would oversimplify the extremely diverse digital market. A much more rational solution seems to be creating separate regulatory obligations for mechanisms that utilize randomness, without the need for automatic application of the entire gambling law regime.

First and foremost, it seems reasonable to introduce full transparency into random mechanisms. Before making a purchase, users should be able to familiarize themselves with the actual probability of winning individual prizes, how the randomization algorithm works, and whether this probability remains constant for all participants. Such solutions already exist in some computer games, but currently they are primarily driven by voluntary decisions by businesses or requirements in specific foreign markets.

The second direction of change should be to strengthen the protection of underage users. In light of current psychological knowledge and the positions of EU institutions, there is little doubt that children are particularly susceptible to the influence of mechanisms based on a variable reward system. Therefore, it seems reasonable to consider limiting the ability of people under a certain age to purchase paid loot boxes or introducing mandatory parental control mechanisms to effectively manage minors’ expenses.

Regardless of the above, legislators should consider introducing more detailed regulations regarding third-party platforms enabling the trading of virtual items. It is this market segment that currently raises the greatest concerns from the perspective of consumer protection and compliance with the Gambling Act. In particular, situations in which items obtained in-game become a means of participation in subsequent games of chance or can be directly converted into cash require analysis. In such cases, the line between a digital service and gambling activity becomes significantly blurred, justifying the application of more restrictive oversight measures.

Obligations regarding marketing activities should also be a crucial element of future regulations. In practice, loot boxes are primarily promoted through influencers and online creators, whose audiences often include minors. While advertising collaborations in and of themselves cannot be deemed unacceptable, situations in which marketing messages exclusively emphasize the possibility of winning exceptionally valuable prizes, disregarding the actual probability of winning them, or employing techniques that could create unreasonable expectations among recipients regarding potential benefits, require special consideration. In this regard, both consumer protection regulations and regulations regarding the integrity of advertising messages may apply.

The issues presented demonstrate that the issue of loot boxes is not limited to gambling law. In fact, it exemplifies a much broader phenomenon involving the use of advanced digital design techniques to influence users’ economic decisions. Technological advancements increasingly render traditional private and public law frameworks inadequate for assessing new business models based on user behavior analysis and interface design that maximizes consumer engagement and spending.

Consequently, the future of loot box regulation will likely depend less on further expansion of the definition of gambling than on the development of European consumer protection standards in the digital environment. Regulations on the transparency of digital services, countering manipulative design patterns, and ensuring a high level of protection for children using the internet are becoming increasingly important . These instruments may become the primary tool for mitigating the risks associated with loot box operations in the coming years.

It should therefore be assumed that effective regulation of this phenomenon requires a multifaceted approach, combining instruments of gambling law, consumer protection law, and digital market regulation. Only such a comprehensive solution will achieve the right balance between the freedom of game producers to conduct business and the need to ensure a high level of protection for users, particularly children and adolescents, who remain most vulnerable to the negative effects of random-based mechanisms.

Artykuł Lootboxes in Computer Games – Between Gambling Law and Consumer Protection. Regulatory Analysis Against the Background of Polish and European Union Law. pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

You see a video, a product catches your eye, and an “add to cart” button is already blinking in the corner of the screen. A few seconds later the order is placed, paid for, and on its way — all without leaving the app. That’s how TikTok Shop works: a closed-loop model in which the path from watching a piece of content to completing a purchase has been cut to the bare minimum. That very immediacy is its greatest strength and, at the same time, the source of its most serious concerns.

A platform that in 2017 drew around 72 million monthly users now attracts more than 1.5 billion — and between 11 and 15 million in Poland alone. TikTok has stopped being merely a place for entertainment and has turned into a powerful advertising and sales engine, combining influencer marketing, algorithmic personalization, and the emotional purchasing impulse. For businesses, it is a new and remarkably effective retail space. For consumers, it is an environment in which it grows ever harder to tell an authentic recommendation from an ad, or a fleeting enthusiasm from a considered decision.

That is precisely why TikTok Shop has landed at the center of lawmakers’ attention. While its model is not unlawful, the platform’s operation intersects with an entire web of regulation: from consumer law and the ban on “dark patterns,” through the EU’s DSA and DMA, data protection and safeguards for minors, all the way to advertising, media, and electronic communications law. This article shows where the convenience of one-tap shopping ends and the protection of the buyer’s free will begins.

What makes the TikTok Shop platform innovative?

Today, an effective marketing strategy is becoming an increasingly important priority for sellers. In Poland, monopolies in sales are relatively rare. Many competing companies operate in most industries. When purchasing products, consumers must choose from hundreds, or even thousands, of options offered by different brands. The scale of this phenomenon is evidenced by the fact that in the fourth quarter of 2025, over 2.9 million active businesses operated in Poland alone, the largest group of which were those associated with the retail sector. Meanwhile, buyers generally do not want to spend much time thoroughly analyzing goods available on the market. They are often guided by the opinions of other users, brand recognition, or media coverage. Therefore, in an information society based on the dynamic development of social media, tailoring advertising to current consumer needs and behaviors becomes crucial for running a business. Authentic and credible recommendations from trusted creators are becoming more important, and for many buyers, they are more persuasive than formulaic television commercials.

Considering the above arguments, many companies are making changes to their advertising strategies, for example, opting for influencer marketing. Online creators typically publish aesthetically and thematically consistent content that captures the interest of users with similar preferences and tastes. A business partnering with an influencer who shares similar values gains the opportunity to reach a large group of potential consumers, made up of the influencer’s followers. TikTok has become the dominant platform enabling the implementation of the marketing model described above. In 2017, the application had approximately 72 million monthly active users, and according to data from 2026, this number has increased to approximately 1.54 billion. In Europe alone, TikTok has already reached over 200 million users, and in Poland, the number ranged from 11 to 15 million. The average time spent on the platform is 70 minutes per day, which translates to approximately 35 hours per month. These statistics also indicate the continued growth of TikTok’s popularity, confirming the future of using social media for advertising and promotional purposes.

The development of influencer marketing significantly changed existing marketing practices, and its increasing prevalence led to the transformation of the TikTok app from a social media platform into an advertising system. The effective and profitable collaboration between media and advertising prompted the platform to take the next step in its development, combining these two sectors. Users were offered the opportunity to completely simplify the purchasing process. Previously, consumers only saw product advertisements, which attracted their attention and prompted them to search for sales offers. However, this pattern left them time to consider whether a purchase was truly necessary or necessary. It was also likely that, despite their interest in the product, they would eventually forget about the advertised product, and therefore their desire to purchase it.

The solution to the marketing strategy described above turned out to be a new feature presented by TikTok: TikTok Shop. The innovative nature of this tool is based on a closed-loop model, meaning the purchasing process takes place within a single app. Users first encounter content promoting a specific item. They then have the option to immediately purchase it by adding the advertised item to their shopping cart in the bottom corner of the app. TikTok acts as an intermediary for payment, shipping, and the entire order process. In this way, the app has evolved not only into a profitable advertising system but also an online store, becoming a marketplace platform that mediates payment, logistics, and order fulfillment.

The origins of TikTok Shop

Initially, the online shopping phenomenon developed through e-commerce. Its popularity contributed to the diversification of online sales into several business models: B2C, B2B, and C2C. The former involves a relationship between a business and an individual customer (examples include online stores such as Zalando, Zara, and IKEA). B2B refers to transactions between businesses, while C2C refers to sales between individuals, such as on platforms like Vinted, OLX, and Allegro.

These e-commerce models typically control the sales process independently. Their profits largely come from consumers who shop by searching for specific products they need. Entrepreneurs compete with each other through marketing activities aimed at convincing consumers of the quality of their products and building brand recognition.

In the next stage, the development of social media, and consequently influencer marketing, contributed to the emergence of a completely new type of buyer, one driven by impulse. Online creators present a specific lifestyle on their profiles in a significantly idealized form, which attracts the attention of their followers and becomes a role model. The desire to emulate the creator they follow can manifest itself both in their behavior and in the possessions they possess. The influencer thus becomes a person who inspires and encourages the purchase of a given product. Even if, from a rational perspective, the buyer doesn’t need the product, they often decide to purchase it under the influence of influencer marketing.

Additionally, a new branch of e-commerce has emerged, known as discovery commerce . This model relies on the discovery and purchase of new items while actively browsing social media. Highly advanced algorithms select content for users that aligns with their tastes or interests, in order to evoke certain emotions that then transform into a strong purchasing impulse. Social media platforms, recognizing this profitable sector, have contributed to the development of social commerce, including TikTok Shop. This solution capitalizes on users’ fleeting enthusiasm and allows them to complete their order without leaving the app. The entire process, from advertising content to payment and shipping, is handled by TikTok, which can limit the time available for rational purchase consideration.

What exactly does the purchasing process look like on TikTok Shop?

TikTok Shop is not a separate app, but a new feature added to the TikTok platform. There’s no need to create a new account or install a new app. This solution provides access to a wide group of potential consumers, as every existing TikTok user over the age of 18 can familiarize themselves with the new feature. This solution gives businesses multiple ways to reach consumers. The platform offers a separate tab, “Shop,” where users can search for specific products using filters and categories, or browse recommended items based on their activity on the platform.

Products offered by sellers using the TikTok Shop service can also be viewed on the “For You Page” tab. This is the subpage most frequently visited by users. This option is especially useful when a company decides to use influencer marketing. A creator posts a video promoting a selected product, and buyers are immediately presented with a purchase button at the bottom of the page. Consumers can also directly access the profiles of brands and creators to find the products they offer or promote.

The latest feature, TikTok Live, is gaining popularity. Before the live stream begins, the seller or influencer adds products available in the TikTok Shop. During the live stream, the host can showcase products, communicate with users, and answer their questions via chat. This can increase the credibility of the product and the seller, as well as encourage consumers to make a purchase, which they can do without interrupting the stream.

The very process of posting ads on TikTok Shop helps build consumer trust. Becoming a seller requires thorough verification, which the TikTok platform conducts to protect users from unreliable and fictitious businesses.

The first step to becoming a seller is to log in to your TikTok Seller Center account using your email address, phone number, or existing TikTok account. You’ll also need to fill out an application form with information that proves your seller credentials, such as your company name, address, and contact information.

After successful verification, the seller completes their store profile, adding a description, name, logo, seller details, addresses, customer service information, and tax information. It’s also necessary to configure payment and delivery methods, including the shipping address, available delivery methods, order processing time, and return policy. Connecting the store dashboard to a regular TikTok account is also crucial. This allows for tagging offered products in live videos, etc. The seller then has the option to publish their product, including the title, description, price, available models, and inventory. The platform also allows businesses to add listings by importing a product catalog from another sales platform.

After a consumer makes a purchase, the seller receives a sale notification in the TikTok Seller Center. The seller is then responsible for packaging and shipping the item to the user, which can be done manually or using external order processing systems.

Distance selling and consumer rights

The TikTok Shop platform offers the option of concluding a sale via a distance contract. This does not require the parties to be physically present at the same time, but rather requires at least one means of distance communication (Act of 30 May 2014 on consumer rights, Article 2). Therefore, when making a purchase through the TikTok Shop, consumer rights are governed by national and European Union law.

In Poland, the primary legal act regulating these activities is the Act of May 30, 2014, on Consumer Rights. Article 12 requires businesses to clearly inform consumers in distance contracts, including the method and deadline for contract execution, the total price including taxes, the right to withdraw from the contract, the complaint procedure, and the seller’s identifying information. The TikTok Shop platform is therefore obligated to provide the required information to the user before finalizing the order via the app. An important regulation is also included in Article 17 of the aforementioned Act and concerns the requirement to design the interface in a way that confirms the consumer’s awareness of the obligation to pay. In the case of platforms that allow order completion via a “button,” it must be clearly marked, e.g., “I buy with an obligation to pay” or “I buy and pay.” Otherwise, the contract is not concluded. The requirements described above are referred to as ” button ” solution ” and are intended to protect consumers from accidentally concluding paid contracts. Alternative obligations also arise from the Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council of 25 October 2011 on consumer rights.

The Consumer Rights Act also implements the EU Commodity Directive (2019/771), introducing uniform standards for the conformity of goods with the contract. A trader is liable for any lack of conformity of goods with the contract upon delivery and for two years from the date the discrepancy is discovered. The Act also governs basic consumer claims in the event of non-conformity, including repair or replacement of the goods, and if this is not possible, a price reduction or withdrawal from the contract.

Given that the sales strategy on the TikTok Shop platform relies on recommendation algorithms and influencer marketing, the Omnibus Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of November 27, 2019, plays a significant role in consumer empowerment. Its regulations introduce the obligation to provide information about the lowest price, disclose whether reviews were published by verified consumers, and indicate whether the seller is a business or an individual. The Omnibus Directive therefore increases consumer awareness and allows consumers to make more rational and manipulation-free purchasing decisions.

Digital Services Act Regulation

Due to their global nature, online platforms reach hundreds of millions of users. Content published through them can reach a very wide audience, thus influencing social, political, and economic relations. Massive social networking sites, therefore, go beyond simply providing entertainment or communication services and digital space, and are beginning to shape the reality around us.

The strong influence of individual platforms on current international relations has initiated more stringent oversight, including through the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act – DSA). Based on this regulation, TikTok was recognized by the European Commission as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP). This status is granted to portals with monthly active users exceeding 10% of the EU population. TikTok exceeded the threshold and was classified as a VLOP in 2023.

Platforms deemed globally influential are not solely responsible for removing illegal content. They are also required to counteract the negative consequences that may arise from their operation. Among the most important responsibilities of very large online platforms (VLOPs) is the identification and assessment of systemic risks and the potential implementation of proportionate mitigation measures. Impacts on fundamental rights, democratic processes, the protection of minors, public safety, and the dissemination of illegal content are particularly scrutinized. Once a specific risk is identified, measures are planned to counteract its escalation, such as modifying the user interface or changing certain advertising practices. In emergency situations, the European Commission has the authority to require VLOP providers to assess the platform’s impact on the development of the crisis, implement specific mitigation measures, and submit periodic reports on the effectiveness of these actions. Very large online platforms are also required to undergo an annual independent audit of compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA) and regularly publish comprehensive reports on their activities. The aim of this action is to ensure transparency of the platform’s operation towards users and supervisory authorities.

The DSA also regulates advertising by introducing the requirement to maintain a public ad repository. This repository should include, among other things, the ad’s content, advertiser, funding entity, broadcast time, and the number of recipients. This solution is intended to ensure transparency in advertising messages and enable social and scientific analysis of platforms’ promotional activities. Restrictions have also been imposed on recommendation systems. This means that VLOPs are required to provide users with at least one way to display content that is not based on profiling, meaning it does not use user activity history or data. To monitor platforms’ compliance with the EU regulation, it is also possible to impose a requirement to share data on, for example, the performance of recommendation algorithms with the European Commission, national digital service coordinators, or verified researchers.

TikTok, however, is not subject only to the obligations of very large online platforms. It is subject to all regulations provided for in the Digital Services Act. According to Article 26, each advertisement must be clearly identified as promotional material and indicate the advertiser, the funding entity, and the mechanism by which it was tailored to the user. This restriction is particularly useful for the TikTok Shop platform, where sponsored content is commonly created in the manner of regular content published by creators. Limiting the phenomenon of so-called hidden advertising through the provisions described above aims to increase user awareness.

One of the DSA’s key goals is also the protection of minors. When designing their services, platforms are required to consider a high level of protection for minors and their privacy. It is prohibited to display advertisements based on the profiling of minors when the platform has knowledge of the user’s minor status. The goal is to limit the use of children’s data for marketing purposes and reduce the risk of addictive use of the app.

The European Commission has also become concerned about potential negative consumer behavior resulting from the increasing transformation of large social media platforms into e-commerce portals. Complex profiling algorithms, influencer marketing, and instant purchases can encourage users to make impulsive decisions or even become dependent on purchasing processes. Articles 25 and 27 of the Consumer Protection Act (DSA) mitigate this risk. Designing web interfaces that manipulate or complicate consumer decision-making – so-called dark patterns – is prohibited. Examples of unacceptable solutions include hiding options that are less favorable to the business, making it difficult to unsubscribe from services, or designing buttons that encourage a specific choice. Users should also be fully aware of how the recommendation system works; therefore, platforms are required to clearly present its main parameters and the possibility of changing the content suggestion method.

Tamper protection and dark patterns

A key premise of the TikTok Shop platform is the immediacy of purchases. While this solution is very beneficial for businesses and, typically, consumers, it can lead to abuse. Sales without leaving the app, a simplified order completion process, and algorithmic personalization of recommended products seem to provide greater convenience when shopping online. However, some activities can be classified as ” dark patterns”, manipulations used to mislead users and influence their decisions. Because the practices described above can lead to impulsive behavior and distort consumer will, they may be treated as unfair market practices and subject to criminal penalties.

The Act of 23 August 2007 on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices defines an unfair market practice as a sale that is contrary to good practice and significantly distorts or may distort the market behavior of the average consumer before, during or after the conclusion of a product agreement , in particular a misleading market practice and an aggressive market practice (Act of 23 August 2007 on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices, Article 4). The main grounds for considering a market practice misleading include the dissemination of false information or truthful information in a potentially misleading manner. Such misleading information typically concerns the existence of a product, its type or availability, price, the method of price calculation, or the existence of a special price advantage.

To encourage immediate purchases, sellers pressure buyers with messages suggesting limited availability or a limited-time promotion for a specific product. Examples of such messages include phrases like “100 people are viewing the product,” “offer ends in 2 hours,” or “only 4 items left.” This practice is not illegal and is one of the most common marketing mechanisms. Problems arise when the website or portal is programmed to continually extend promotions, the offer doesn’t actually expire after the specified date, or the counter restarts upon page refresh.

Misleading practices, such as suggesting the limited nature of a permanently available offer, and aggressive practices, such as exerting time pressure, may result in legal consequences. In addition to the aforementioned Act of 23 August 2007 on Combating Unfair Commercial Practices, this issue is also regulated by Directive 2005/29/EC concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market. This directive distinguishes between misleading commercial practices and aggressive commercial practices. Together, they constitute unfair commercial practices, which include, in particular, actions that are contrary to the requirements of professional diligence and that significantly distort or are likely to significantly distort the economic behavior of the average consumer who reaches or is targeted by the practice, or the average member of a group of consumers if the commercial practice is targeted at a specific group of consumers (Directive 2005/29/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 May 2005 concerning unfair business-to-consumer commercial practices in the internal market and amending Council Directive 84/450/EEC, Directives 97/7/EC, 98/27/EC and 2002/65/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council and Regulation (EC) No 2006/2004 of the European Parliament and of the Council (“Unfair Commercial Practices Directive”), Chapter 2, Article 5, paragraph 2).

Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 (Omnibus Directive) is also intended to combat various manifestations of the “dark patterns” phenomenon. It requires sellers to disclose the lowest price for a product within the last 30 days. This is intended to prevent the practice of artificially inflating prices and then announcing sales. The practice of fake reviews has also been curbed by introducing an obligation to disclose whether and how reviews posted on sales websites are verified. The Omnibus Directive also introduced the requirement to indicate on marketplace platforms whether the seller is a private individual or a professional entrepreneur, so that consumers are aware of who they are buying from.

The European Union has also introduced restrictions related to the design of digital services, contained in Regulation 2022/2065 on the Digital Single Market (DSA). As a result, online platform providers cannot design, organize, or operate their online interfaces in a way that misleads, manipulates, or otherwise interferes with or limits the ability of service users to make free and informed decisions. The regulation therefore directly addresses the fight against “dark patterns,” i.e., website design practices that deliberately use deceptive techniques, such as pre-selected consents or difficult unsubscribes.

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) has broad authority to protect consumers from the unfair commercial practices mentioned above. Under the Act of 16 February 2007 on Competition and Consumer Protection, one of his powers is to protect the collective interests of consumers, including through provisions counteracting unfair market practices. If necessary, the UOKiK President may initiate proceedings against a business, ordering it to cease the unfair practice, or requiring the seller to remedy the effects of the violation. Should a business fail to comply with the guidelines, he may impose a fine of up to 10% of the business’s turnover in the previous year.

The number of legal acts, including EU documents, regulating unfair commercial practices reflects the considerable interest in this issue among both legislators and consumer protection authorities. TikTok Shop, as a social commerce model, is not illegal. It utilizes mechanisms combining influencer marketing, personalization, and emotional impact on the recipient, but the design of the user interface is crucial for this platform. The popularity of mass sales portals has contributed to the increasing use of “dark patterns” by businesses over the past few years. For this reason, the European Union and the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) are increasingly rigorously monitoring sales tactics and issuing new legal acts to protect consumers and their free will when making purchases.

Influencer Marketing and Advertising Law

The effectiveness of influencer marketing stems from combining advertising with the ability to make an immediate purchase. Affiliate links, product tags, or direct purchase buttons, such as those on the TikTok Shop platform, are displayed beneath posts, videos, or other promotional materials. This purchasing model has proven effective by significantly simplifying the ordering process, thus reducing the time consumers spend considering the rationale behind the transaction.

The popularity of the marketing strategy described above stems from its perception by users, who perceive it as authentic and credible. Influencers present promoted products in a natural way, integrating them into their daily routine. However, if the material does not solely reflect the creator’s personal opinion but is created after receiving a benefit in return, it is considered commercial communication. This means it is subject to legal regulations on advertising and consumer protection. In Poland, influencers should clearly label advertising content in accordance with the Recommendations of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. These regulations are intended to prevent misleading users.

Only content regarding a product that the influencer purchased independently and for which they did not receive remuneration or other benefits can be marked as a private opinion. Such material contains genuine feelings and opinions and therefore does not constitute advertising under the law and is not subject to advertising law. This is the most credible and reliable form of review for potential consumers, as it was created by a person not under any obligation to the manufacturer.

A manufacturer may enter into an agreement with an influencer to promote a product in exchange for a free product, financial benefit, or other form of remuneration. This creates legally regulated advertising. It may take the form of a post, report, or live broadcast in which the creator demonstrates how they use the product and its positive properties. Due to the natural presentation of the product as an everyday element, the recipient may have difficulty distinguishing a genuine recommendation from commercial content. The Act of August 23, 2007, on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices, classifies the act of concealing a promotional message as a misleading omission. Failure to clearly indicate the commercial nature of the material may hinder consumers’ proper assessment of the message and directly influence their purchasing decisions.

Another common advertising strategy is to feature a product integrated into published content without directly promoting it, for example, by placing it in the background of the material. This phenomenon is called product placement. Activities covered by advertising and consumer protection law also include, among others, affiliate and partner links, ambassador programs, and partner competitions. In Poland, these practices must contain clear, understandable to the average recipient, and visible advertising labels from the very beginning, such as “advertisement,” “paid collaboration,” or “sponsored content.” The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) also recommends the use of two-level labeling, meaning that, in addition to the information contained in the content, the platform’s functionality must also be used to announce the paid collaboration. Detailed guidelines can be found in the Recommendations of the President of the UOKiK regarding the labeling of advertising content by influencers. Material is considered advertising content not only when the influencer receives monetary compensation in exchange for its creation. The same obligation applies when promoting your own business, receiving a free product or service, or obtaining a sales commission via an affiliate link or discount code (Recommendations of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection regarding the marking of advertising content by influencers).

In the event of non-compliance with the Recommendations of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection regarding the labeling of advertising content by influencers, pursuant to the Act of 16 February 2007 on Competition and Consumer Protection, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) conducts proceedings against entrepreneurs using practices that violate the collective interests of consumers. Actions may be taken against advertisers, influencers, and marketing agencies. Therefore, responsibility for incorrect labeling of advertising content rests not only with the creator publishing the material but also with all entities participating in organizing the promotional campaign. One of the sanctions that the President of the UOKiK has the right to impose is a financial penalty. Incorrectly labeled promotional material can also be considered surreptitious advertising. Due to the dynamic development of influencer marketing, the proper creation of marketing content is currently widely subject to UOKiK scrutiny. Therefore, it is worth clearly and understandably labeling sponsored publications, among other things, to avoid significant financial penalties.

Personal data protection

TikTok Shop, as a hybrid social network and e-commerce platform, processes a significant amount of data related to both user activity and purchasing processes. The app’s operation is based on audience profiling and matching the most relevant content. Therefore, the platform’s operations are subject to the provisions of Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data (GDPR).

In addition to user data such as name, surname, contact details, shipping addresses, and payment information, media platforms also collect information that allows for behavioral analysis. Time spent browsing specific products, interactions with ads, and the history of items added to carts or wish lists allow the TikTok Shop platform to create a personalized recommendation system based on past activity. This phenomenon creates so-called behavioral advertising, a marketing strategy based on user profiling using advanced algorithms to predict future purchasing decisions. The concept of profiling refers to the automated processing of personal data, particularly for the purpose of predicting a user’s economic situation, personal preferences, interests, health, and location.

According to the GDPR, profiling is permissible, but it also comes with a number of obligations. Platforms are obligated to transparently inform users about, among other things, the purposes of profiling, the legal basis for data processing, the consequences of the actions taken, and their rights, including the right to object to profiling. Data of minors is particularly protected. Due to the growing popularity of the TikTok app among young users, it was necessary to subject it to special regulations in this regard. In the area of information society services, the processing of data of children over 16 years of age is lawful. An exception is made for situations in which a person with parental authority or guardianship provides prior consent. However, EU member states may introduce a lower age limit in their laws, but it must be at least 13 years old, as is the case in Poland, for example. To ensure that platforms enforce their obligations related to the protection of minors, they should use appropriate age verification mechanisms. In practice, however, this solution requires further improvement due to the common practice of users providing false data during registration.

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) plays a crucial role in protecting users, especially the collective interests of consumers. He is authorized to take action against entrepreneurs who engage in unfair market practices, design manipulative interfaces, and so on. Personal data protection, however, falls primarily within the remit of the Office for Personal Data Protection (UODO), which oversees compliance with the GDPR and the secure processing of information by companies and institutions. Due to its global influence, TikTok has attracted increasing attention from EU authorities in recent years and is becoming the subject of more frequent inspections. Due to the platform’s European headquarters being located in Ireland, the relevant supervisory authority is the Irish Data Protection Commission (DPC). For example, in 2025, this institution imposed a fine of €530 million on ByteDance, the app’s owner. The fine was imposed on the transfer of user data from the European Economic Area to China in violation of the GDPR and the failure to demonstrate data protection at the level guaranteed in the EU.

The GDPR is supplemented by Directive 2002/58/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 12 July 2002 concerning the processing of personal data and the protection of privacy in the electronic communications sector (Directive on privacy and electronic communications), which regulates, in addition to the processing of personal data, the confidentiality of electronic communications, also known as ePrivacy. Due to the scope of its regulations, the provisions of this directive have particular relevance to the TikTok Shop application. The platform uses numerous tracking technologies, such as cookies and mobile device advertising identifiers, to monitor user activity. Information may be stored on a user’s device or accessed only after obtaining prior consent. Exceptions are made only for technologies strictly necessary to provide the service requested by the user, such as remembering a shopping cart. An additional ePrivacy regulation was also envisaged, the purpose of which was to replace the current directive and harmonize the personal data protection rules applicable in all EU Member States. The changes were to include, among other things, simplifying the rules regarding cookies. However, the project encountered legislative difficulties and was not adopted by decision of the European Commission.

Abuse of Market Power and the Digital Markets Plan

The dynamic expansion of the largest digital platforms’ influence has led to the need to adapt competition law to the new situation, particularly in the digital market. To this end, the European Union adopted Regulation (EU) 2022/1925 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 September 2022 on contestable and fair markets in the digital sector and amending Directives (EU) 2019/1937 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Digital Markets Act – DMA). The Act introduces the concept of a gatekeeper. This term refers to an entrepreneur with an influential position in the internal market, through which business users reach end users. A gatekeeper provides a core platform service and maintains an established market position.

The dominant position of a gatekeeper is also associated with a number of obligations. Among other things, the practice of self-preferencing, which involves favoring one’s own products or services over the offers of other businesses using the platform, is prohibited. In the case of TikTok Shop, this could involve using recommendation algorithms to increase the visibility of products promoted by individual sellers, without applying objective and fair advertising criteria. This type of favoritism and limiting the reach of individual entities could lead to a distortion of fair competition between businesses using TikTok Shop for sales purposes.

By decision of the European Commission, BytaDance Ltd. was granted gatekeeper status solely for the operation of the TikTok application as a social media platform. The DMA regulations governing the gatekeeper position do not apply directly to TikTok Shop, but they may impact the rules for recommending products and using entrepreneurs’ data.

Media law and audiovisual regulations

Audiovisual materials are the primary tool for promoting and selling products on the TikTok Shop marketplace. Therefore, the app’s operations are also subject to scrutiny for compliance with media law and regulations governing audiovisual media services. The dominant role in this regard is played by Directive 2010/13/U of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation, or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services (Audiovisual Media Services Directive – AVMSD) and the Broadcasting Act of 29 December 1992, which implements it into Polish law. As a result of the amendment to the Act of 11 August 2021, the regulations have been extended to video-sharing platforms, including the TikTok app.

Video-sharing platforms are primarily obligated to implement appropriate measures to protect minors from harmful content that could negatively impact their moral, mental, or physical development. These provisions have been implemented into Polish law through Article 47e of the Broadcasting Act, which mandates, among other things, the marking of potentially inappropriate content with special graphics for young viewers. These regulations are particularly important for the TikTok Shop platform due to the constantly growing number of underage users. Posting content that spreads hatred and discrimination is also prohibited.

TikTok Shop, a hybrid social media platform and e-commerce platform, is often used to publish so-called audiovisual commercial communications—images used to directly or indirectly promote goods, services, or individuals (Directive 2010/13/U of the European Parliament and of the Council of 10 March 2010 on the coordination of certain provisions laid down by law, regulation or administrative action in Member States concerning the provision of audiovisual media services, Article 1). Article 9 of the AVMSD requires member states to ensure that such communications are easily recognizable, thus prohibiting hidden audiovisual commercial communications. The use of subliminal techniques or the inclusion of discriminatory content would also be illegal. The National Broadcasting Council (KRRiT) is responsible for ensuring compliance with audiovisual law. Its remit includes, among other things, overseeing the activities of video-sharing platform providers.

The sales method used by TikTok Shop may seem analogous to teleshopping, offerings directly to consumers to deliver goods or services in exchange for payment. This modern form of interactive audiovisual commerce (live shopping) bears numerous similarities to traditional teleshopping. The mechanisms of both aforementioned sales methods involve presenting the product, its specific features, available options, and generally encouraging the recipient to purchase. However, teleshopping is targeted at a general, anonymous audience who may only be interested in the recommended product. Meanwhile, TikTok Shop relies on advanced algorithms that target promotional content to users who, based on their previous activity, have shown interest in similar content.

Platform liability under e-commerce regulations

The original act regulating the legal liability of online platforms in the European Union was Directive 2000/31/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 8 June 2000 on certain legal aspects of information society services, in particular electronic commerce, in the Internal Market (Directive on electronic commerce). Its foundation was the so-called safe harbor principle, i.e., the principle of limited liability of online intermediaries. According to this principle, hosting service providers and online platforms were not liable for content or goods published by users, provided they had no actual knowledge of the illegal nature of the content or goods or services or, upon obtaining such knowledge, promptly removed any infringements. Furthermore, the directive did not impose a general obligation on platforms to monitor content published by users.

However, the ongoing development of digital platforms has made it necessary to amend the current liability model. Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 – Digital Services Act (DSA) – came into effect on February 17, 2024. This regulation does not eliminate the principle of limited liability but significantly expands monitoring obligations, especially for very large online platforms (VLOPs). One of the key obligations introduced under the new regulations is the Know Your Business Customer (KYBC) principle. This regulation aims to increase the safety of consumers shopping online by limiting sales conducted by dishonest or anonymous traders. Before enabling sales through its platform, an online platform must collect and verify basic data identifying the seller. The required information includes, among others, the trader’s name, registered office address, contact details, registration number in the relevant register of traders, and the trader’s payment account details. In the event of refusal to provide the specified data or providing it falsely, the platform should prevent the trader from conducting sales until the situation is resolved.

A problematic issue related to the TikTok Shop app is defining the platform’s responsibility for transactions conducted by sellers using it. Although TikTok Shop formally acts as an online intermediary, it can be argued that its operating mechanism goes beyond passive hosting. A recommendation system using algorithms, promoting offers, and providing marketing and analytical tools to sellers are the mechanisms TikTok Shop uses to shape consumer behavior and purchasing decisions. The platform’s influence on the visibility of offers and the order fulfillment process may support assigning it broader responsibilities in overseeing the online sales process.

Regulations on electronic communications, including the European Electronic Communications Code and the Polish Electronic Communications Law

The TikTok Shop platform does not constitute an electronic communications service under European Union law, but its operations provide for various forms of electronic communication. TikTok Shop’s use of push notifications, in-app messages, and marketing communications requires the platform to comply with regulations governing electronic marketing and the protection of user privacy in electronic communications. The primary legal acts regulating these aspects are Directive (EU) 2018/1972 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2018 establishing the European Electronic Communications Code (EECC) and the Act of 12 July 2024 – Electronic Communications Law.

The primary function of TikTok Shop is to enable entities to sell goods through the social media platform. Article 2 of the European Electronic Communications Code defines an electronic communications service as the transmission of signal transmissions or the provision of interpersonal communications services. The mere ability to exchange messages between users or with sellers does not automatically qualify the TikTok Shop platform as a provider of electronic communications services, as this is not its core competency and does not constitute its core business. However, because electronic communications are primarily used for marketing purposes, it is obligated to comply with regulations governing direct marketing and the protection of user privacy.

Push notifications, messages sent directly to users’ mobile devices, are an increasingly popular marketing solution. TikTok Shop uses them to provide information about order status, discounts, time-limited campaigns, or the launch of live shopping. Transactional notifications regarding order fulfillment, shipping, or payment status are typically part of the contract and do not require marketing consent. However, notifications encouraging potential consumers to make a purchase are classified as direct marketing and, in accordance with electronic communications law, require prior user consent.

The practice of using automated calling systems and electronic means of communication for advertising purposes without the user’s prior consent is also prohibited. Users should be clearly informed about the purpose of receiving marketing communications, the data controller, and the possibility of withdrawing consent, which should not result in any negative consequences. With respect to the TikTok Shop platform, the above position means that it is unlawful to send promotional content to users solely based on the fact that they have an account on the app.

TikTok Shop is the clearest example of how thin the line between entertainment, advertising, and commerce has become – a one-tap purchase woven into a stream of content is now as effortless as liking a video. Yet that convenience comes at a price: the closed-loop model and algorithmic personalization shrink the time left for rational reflection, while responsibility for protecting the consumer shifts increasingly away from the buyer and onto the platform and the legislator. EU and national regulations – from consumer law, through the DSA and DMA, data protection and safeguards for minors, all the way to media and electronic communications law – form a web meant to counterbalance the platform’s power and restore the buyer’s awareness of their own choices. TikTok Shop thus remains a dual phenomenon: on one hand a groundbreaking innovation in digital commerce, on the other a test of whether the law can keep pace with a technology that sells faster than we can think.

Artykuł A Store in Your Pocket, the Law in the Background: TikTok Shop Under the Regulators’ Lens pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

We are pleased to share that Kiełtyka Gładkowski KG Legal has published an expert contribution in Infor, one of Poland’s leading legal and financial publications, devoted to one of the most intriguing regulatory phenomena of the digital economy: loot boxes in video games.

“Loot boxes in video games: between gambling law and consumer protection – a regulatory analysis under Polish and European Union law”

The article goes far beyond the classic “are loot boxes gambling?” debate. By analysing the actual monetisation models used in modern games — particularly microtransactions involving paid acquisition of virtual packages with randomised content — we examine how these mechanisms interact with:

• Polish gambling law and the statutory definition of a game of chance,
• EU consumer protection rules,
• digital services regulation,
• taxation and compliance considerations,
• and emerging concerns related to behavioural design and dark patterns.

One of the key conclusions is that the regulatory importance of loot boxes stems not only from their possible resemblance to gambling mechanisms, but also from the fact that such systems are frequently used by inexperienced consumers, including minors, who may be especially susceptible to manipulative design techniques aimed at increasing engagement and spending.

This is precisely the type of cross-sector regulatory issue in which our team has extensive experience — combining expertise in technology law, highly regulated industries, digital services, compliance, consumer protection and EU regulatory frameworks. We are proud that this experience is reflected in publications appearing in professional journals such as Infor.

Read the article here: Infor – Loot boxes in video games: between gambling law and consumer protection

Artykuł Kiełtyka Gładkowski KG Legal has published an expert contribution in Infor, devoted to loot boxes in video games pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Jan K., a literature enthusiast with an extraordinary fondness for Polish children’s poetry, finally managed to find a very rare book after a long search – an edition of Julian Tuwim’s “Locomotive,” which he purchased without hesitation from a used bookstore in Maryland, USA, via the online platform AbeBooks. The ease and simplicity of the solution – clicking the “BUY NOW” button, which would soon bring his dream book to him – combined with the bargain price for such a sought-after rarity in the reading community, filled Jan K. with optimism. From that moment on, he simply waited for the Polish Post to knock on his door and deliver him the publication he considered the opportunity of a lifetime. Perhaps it would have been, had Jan K. considered the key issues surrounding importing goods from the USA and the associated costs.

In analyzing the above case, it is crucial to focus on the fundamental concepts related to consumer rights and obligations, which have legal implications – and which can be reduced to the following questions: who does Jan K. become and what does he do in this regard? Given the dynamic growth of global e-commerce between the European Union and the United States, current regulations impose on consumers the role of participants in trade in goods. Under the Union Customs Code, and as confirmed by the case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU), goods mean any product that has a measurable monetary value and, as such, may constitute the subject of a commercial transaction. Therefore, every shipment of goods is subject to customs supervision upon crossing the EU border (Article 134, point 1 of Regulation 952/2013 establishing the Union Customs Code), which also includes customs control (Article 5, point 3 thereof), which refers to specific verification activities performed by customs and tax authorities, such as a search of the goods. This procedure may also involve the risk of a customs debt (Article 5, point 18, ibid.), which would impose on the debtor (Article 5, point 19, ibid.) the obligation to pay the applicable shipping charges. Furthermore, raising the issue of a customs representative – in the form of direct or indirect representation (Article 18, point 1, ibid.), Poczta Polska could potentially become this representative.

Returning to Jan K.’s case, since the book meets the definition of a commodity, the consumer effectively becomes an importer of non-EU goods. The American sales platform was therefore merely a tool enabling the transaction and payment, acting solely as an intermediary between the seller and the buyer. Therefore, the consumer bears all legal responsibility for the authenticity of the documents submitted to Poczta Polska for clearance. Returning to reality, Jan K. should pay attention to important legal aspects when purchasing a unique reading item. It’s worth starting by separating the price of the goods from the shipping costs.

Higher mathematics – calculating customs value

If additional fees related to importing goods from the US to Poland are not included in the price, you should calculate how much you will actually pay for shipping, as the final customs value is made up of several additional fees. Shipping to the EU must first be added to the product price. Customs duty, which varies depending on the product type, is added to this amount (this information is available, for example, in the Polish ISZTAR tariff system or the European TARIC). This amount becomes our VAT base, and the tax is calculated from it. Estimating the total cost of goods, including import, significantly helps in making rational consumer decisions and can save our wallets, sometimes unprepared for additional financial burdens.Play

When tariffs work and when they don’t

Is Jan K. rightly happy about his bargain, or will he first have to contend with the customs system? Until now, a fairly favorable rule existed, according to which shipments up to €150 worth were completely duty-free. However, July 1, 2026, introduces a revolution in this area – the duty exemption is replaced by a flat-rate duty mechanism of €3 for each item, representing a group of goods of the same type, and therefore classified under the same CN code. Although from a customs perspective, the seller would be the customs debtor, the Ministry of Finance emphasizes that how this cost is calculated depends on the business policy of the given platform. Many American platforms add the flat-rate duty to the final price in the basket or in the shipping costs. Additional fees may also be related to the seller’s shipping terms – the seller may declare that they will cover import duties (DDP), or the buyer may be responsible for this, and may be charged a surcharge (DAP). Failure to establish clear shipping terms often results in the buyer being required to pay, a fact that only becomes apparent upon delivery. For this reason, Jan K. should verify the terms he agrees to and what additional costs are included in the price.

The IOSS and OSS procedures may provide some stability in terms of fees. IOSS, which applies to purchases of physical goods, including those from the US, is aimed at non-EU entities that conduct distance selling of imported goods (SOTI) and have established an intermediary that is an active VAT payer in Poland. Currently, this system is used by the vast majority of large platforms in the US, such as Amazon, eBay, Etsy, and Shopify, although additional verification is always helpful. EU and non-EU OSS, on the other hand, are primarily useful for digital services (e-books, games), telecommunications and broadcasting services (internet-based television signal delivery), and other intangible services (e.g., educational services). However, a key aspect of the IOSS system, which we will discuss in more detail in the context of purchases on US platforms, is the value threshold – if the actual value of a physical book is within €150, the platform will collect Polish VAT directly during the payment transaction. However, if this value were higher than EUR 150, IOSS cannot be used and the parcel is subject to the standard customs procedure requiring declaration on the SAD H1 document in the AIS-IMPORT system (i.e. use of the VAT E-Commerce system).

Where is the Polish Post Office in all this?

Article 19 of the Customs Law is a treasure trove of knowledge on the proper conduct of customs procedures – it regulates, among other things, the procedure for presenting goods and filing customs declarations in postal traffic handled by a designated operator. This is where Poczta Polska SA comes in, fulfilling this role, thus acting as a link between the e-consumer and the foreign operator. As mentioned earlier, anyone can appoint a customs representative, acting directly or indirectly. However, in the case of shipments imported from countries such as the USA, there is a certain institutional facility known as tacit (implicit) customs representation.

This mechanism works simply: if the actual value does not exceed €150, the designated operator, i.e., Poczta Polska, will be authorized by law to file a customs declaration on behalf of and for the benefit of the recipient (unless the consumer objects to the notification of arrival). What does this mean in practice? The platform simply adds Polish VAT at the time of purchase. If it uses the IOSS system, the customs declaration in the e-commerce system is submitted using the simplified H7 customs declaration, and the consumer receives the parcel from the Poczta Polska postman at no additional charge upon delivery. If the platform is not equipped with IOSS, VAT must be calculated and collected upon the goods’ arrival in the EU, which means the consumer pays VAT under the general rules upon delivery.

What if the shipment value exceeds €150? The problem of verifying whether the platform uses IOSS resolves itself somewhat. In this case, the platform loses its customs supplier status and assumes only accounting obligations, and therefore, customs and tax duties are settled within the scope of full customs declarations in the national AIS-IMPORT system in the importing country. Poczta Polska does not have an implied power of attorney in this case – the recipient receives a notification and must submit the required documents within 14 days, grant Poczta Polska a customs power of attorney, or otherwise perform customs clearance on their own.

Cooperation with Poczta Polska – proper documents for conscientious service

Courier companies are becoming increasingly popular, ensuring efficient delivery and clear communication. However, when importing goods from a non-EU country, additional fees may be charged. Poczta Polska often proves to be a more cost-effective alternative, but it requires a complete set of documents. This list includes: confirmation of the type and value of the goods; proof of payment: shipping costs, insurance, and any discount information; recipient details and additional documents such as certificates and permits (in transactions between private parties, a “declaration regarding the goods contained in the shipment” in the case of gifts). Importantly, the better the description of the parcel, the less chance of additional complications, such as the need to clarify the contents, prepare corrections, or delays.

Polish Post’s negative dictionary

Since we’ve touched on customs situations that can prove particularly problematic, we should mention Poczta Polska’s blacklist of goods – or rather, its negative vocabulary. This list lists goods for which Poczta Polska does not perform customs clearance under the VAT E-commerce package; customs clearance is handled independently. These primarily include: goods shipped as commercial samples, medicines and medical devices (high risk of shipment detention), food (possible additional inspections), plant and animal products (often subject to separate sanitary regulations), weapons, collectibles and counterfeits (intellectual property rights), electronics with batteries (frequent transport requirements), alcohol and tobacco products (tax regime and quantity restrictions). These goods therefore require special care and adherence to formal requirements, not to mention the need for full customs clearance using the SAD H1 import document.

Other (this time favorable) exceptions

Goods that deviate from the rule regarding proper customs clearance can also have a positive impact on the consumer. These special situations include, among other things, customs duty exemption. Under Article 203(3) of Implementing Regulation 2015/2447, non-Union goods that originally had EU status are exempt from import duties as a result of being exported from outside the EU and then re-imported within three years and released for free circulation. Another example, although going beyond sales on foreign sales platforms, are gifts with an actual value of up to €45 – they are completely exempt from customs duty if they are a private-to-private, occasional, free-of-charge, and appropriately marked package (excise goods do not apply here).

How will all this work in practice? The case of Jan K.

To this end, let’s consider two scenarios: in the first, Jan K. managed to snag his dream book for only €50, as it didn’t stand out from the catalog of books available at the second-hand bookstore. In the second, Jan K. paid €300 for “Lokomotywa” (The Locomotive), as it was a collector’s edition, practically unavailable in the current reading market. The AbeBooks platform, like most major American platforms, uses the IOSS system. What path will a consumer of the American sales platform have to take to enjoy their desired book?

Scenario 1: Locomotive below €150

The customs value is immediately apparent – Polish VAT was added to the price of the goods, and payment was made via the AbeBooks platform, while imports at the border are VAT-exempt. Although the flat-rate customs duty of €3 per item should have been paid through the platform, Jan K. should be aware that this amount could have been included in the price of the book itself or in the shipping costs. The parcel was shipped from the USA, and the seller marked it with the platform’s IOSS identification number. Jan K. did not object, so Poczta Polska became the tacit customs representative and processed the clearance automatically, using a simplified H7 customs declaration in the e-commerce system. The parcel was not classified as a collector’s item, which was due to the seller’s precise and detailed descriptions. A Poczta Polska postman delivered the parcel to Jan K., and from that moment on, he was able to immerse himself in Tuwim’s poetry.

Scenario 2: “Locomotive” above €150

Now let’s analyze a slightly less favorable option for Jan K.: Here, customs duty and VAT are not included in the book’s price, which initially pleased Jan K. The seller shipped the package, but because it was shipped from the United States, the carrier must submit an Entry Summary Declaration (ENS) and lodge it with the appropriate customs office before the goods arrive. An ENS would not be necessary only if the sale was made from common transit countries that have concluded agreements with the EU on the recognition of security and safety inspections conducted in these exporting countries, namely Norway, Liechtenstein, and Switzerland. When the package reaches Poland, customs and tax systems block its further route, and it is placed under customs supervision. Poczta Polska sent the importer, Jan K., a paper notification (although electronic notification is also possible) about the shipment being held for customs clearance. A terrified Jan K. tried to find out what was happening with his parcel and why it had been detained. He finally discovered that Poczta Polska was not his customs representative. After controlling his emotions, he gathered the necessary documentation, which included proof of purchase, payment confirmation with a breakdown of the price of the goods themselves, shipping fees, and item description, as well as a signed power of attorney, and sent it to Paczka Polska. Poczta Polska, which had become Jan K.’s active representative, processed customs clearance using the AIS-IMPORT system, using full import customs declarations on the SAD H1 document. The customs and tax office then assessed fees: customs duty based on the CN customs classification and VAT based on the tax base, which is the combined price of the goods, transportation fees, and customs duties. This process was successful, the parcel was returned to postal service, and the postman knocked on Jan K.’s door – the importer’s enthusiasm was somewhat lower than in Scenario 1, as he had already incurred customs and VAT costs before beginning the reading.

What if the package arrives damaged?

The complications continue: the package was damaged, and we don’t know who to contact. Since the introduction of the Tax Explanations on July 1, 2021, autonomous tax law creates a legal fiction under which the electronic interface operator is considered a B2C supplier, the platform is therefore obligated to tax and settle the transaction. This solution is primarily beneficial to officials, who find it more convenient to collect VAT from a large platform than from hundreds of smaller sellers. On the other hand, it creates a certain ambiguity – as we established above, the platform is still merely an intermediary under civil law. Why do we see a discrepancy here? Because of the issue of tortious liability.

If the “Locomotive” purchased by Jan K. were lost or destroyed before delivery, from July 2021, the consumer would have to direct warranty or non-performance claims to the Maryland antiquarian bookstore, not the AbeBooks platform (if the damage occurred during transport, i.e., before formal release by customs). It should undergo a qualification process as defective goods, and if approved, the American seller is to make a price adjustment, which will reduce the overall customs value, automatically including the costs of customs duty and VAT. For goods over €150 or of collector’s value, the loss or destruction of a package in the warehouse results in a customs debt, and Poczta Polska becomes the debtor. If damage to goods worth less than €150 occurred during transport by Poczta Polska, after legal qualification and removal of the goods from customs supervision, the postal operator is obligated to pay the VAT, along with default interest.

Despite the many scenarios, one important rule stands out – the platform itself very rarely pays compensation. Based on US court decisions (such as the Bolger vs. Amazon.com, LLC case, in which Angela Bolger suffered serious bodily injury after a laptop battery purchased through Amazon exploded), it can be assumed that the chance of obtaining compensation increases essentially only if the platform controlled the physical delivery process. Or rather, if this can be proven in court. Platform uniqueness, as Janger and Twerski called it in their renowned 2023 analysis, is increasingly being raised as a serious problem for consumer protection and rational risk management. American sales platforms hide behind formal definitions of “sale” and “title,” but in practice, these explanations have little application. This absurdity is particularly evident in models such as FBA (Fulfillment by Amazon), where the platform stores, packages, and ships the goods, and claims the right to substitute without consulting the consumer. The fiction of a “recognized supplier” exists under VAT law, yet remains free from civil liability.

Cost-related catches – what to watch out for so as not to overpay

As the example above shows, the issues of cost and financial responsibility are often ambiguous, so it’s important to understand what additional fees we might be exposed to. Distinguishing the price of the goods from transportation fees, customs duties, and VAT is the first, but not the last, point at which we should consider how much importing goods purchased on an American marketplace will actually cost us. In addition to the components of the customs value, we must also consider other possible fees, such as the cost of insuring the imported goods, loading and handling fees associated with their transport to the national border or a Polish port.

The principle that “determinations of charges for transport costs must be unambiguous, precise, and separate for domestic and international sections” is one of the key aspects of EU customs law. Why is this so important? According to Articles 71 and 72 of the UCC, foreign and domestic sections are treated differently – the customs value of goods increases upon entry into the customs union, whereas within the EU, costs are not included in this value. However, the Act introduces a condition here, specifically a clear separation of goods and transport costs (which is why this had to be clearly stated in Scenario 2 of Jan K. in Jan K.’s documents for Poczta Polska). If only one transport amount appears on the invoice, the customs authority has the right to include 100% of the transport costs in the customs value. This trap, known as the cascading effect, is likely to occur in transactions on online marketplaces, as confirmed by the Supreme Administrative Court’s rulings in this case.

The customs authorities’ reasoning can be traced to the Supreme Administrative Court’s judgment of March 17, 1999 (SA/ Sz 1731/98). In this case, the Spanish wine seller failed to divide costs and sections into foreign and domestic, and the transaction itself resulted in two sets of invoices for different amounts (the second set of invoices had a significantly higher value). The Supreme Administrative Court dismissed the importer’s complaint regarding alleged violations of customs and administrative law by the customs authorities, and in its justification, cited the obligation to determine the amount due in a clear and precise manner, using objective and measurable data. The judgment is a reprimand for the company’s arbitrariness.

Separating costs is also important in so-called simplified procedures. As mentioned earlier, the simplified H7 declaration applies to products whose actual value, i.e., the price of the goods themselves, does not exceed €150. If the seller fails to separate the costs on the invoice, shipping costs will be included in the actual value – if this amount exceeds €150, the seller will have to go through the full customs procedure. Failure to clearly present the cost breakdown could also impact the efficiency of the entire import procedure. Because the simplified H7 declaration is processed automatically by the National Tax Administration, the algorithm may detect irregularities in the declared data, which may result in document revisions or a physical inspection of the package. This, in turn, can generate potential delays and other problems.

There are also minor and often overlooked issues, such as different CN codes for goods in the same package. A separate flat-rate customs duty must be paid for each item from a different line item. Let’s not forget the mundane, yet utterly human, issue: if the item we ordered doesn’t meet our expectations and we want to return it, the customs and VAT costs will not be refunded. With this in mind, it’s important to weigh the pros and cons before making a final decision.

Summary

The purchase of Tuwim’s “Locomotive,” besides its aesthetic appeal, undoubtedly provided Jan K. with insight into the EU customs system for goods imported from outside the European Union, specifically the USA. The most important lessons learned from this lesson include an awareness of the consumer’s role when importing goods from outside the EU and their customs and tax obligations, as well as the operating principles and powers of the Polish Post, along with its requirements for importers. The potential costs incurred by both consumers and sellers in transactions made via the online marketplace were also analyzed. A study of regulations and specific examples demonstrated the importance of a properly conducted procedure for both parties, so as to avoid unnecessary financial burdens on either side.

In the current era of globalization and the development of global export giants, purchasing products and services online is inevitable. American platforms such as Amazon, eBay , Wayfair, Target, and Walmart, having established a stable and strong position in the global market, conduct sales primarily focused on protecting their structures and generating profits. Therefore, as Polish consumers of American products, we should, above all, protect our own interests and financial security, be aware of the dangers and risks associated with ignorance of appropriate customs procedures and our obligations as a party to the transaction. In other words, let’s follow the example of Jan K., who fulfilled his desire for a unique book by studying his consumer rights and responsibilities on the American platform AbeBooks.

Bibliography:

Legal acts:

Act of 11 March 2004 on tax on goods and services (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 775, as amended). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/17086198/444640770/podatek-od-towarow-i-uslug?keyword=podatek%20od%20towar%C3%B3w%20i%20us%C5%82ug%20&searchPit=2026-07-15

Act of 19 March 2004 – Customs Law (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1373). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/17088507/441956979/prawo-celne?keyword=ustawa%20prawo%20celne%20&searchPit=2026-07-15

Council Regulation (EC) No 1186/2009 of 16 November 2009 setting up a Community system of reliefs from customs duty (codified version) (OJ L 324, 2009, p. 23, as amended). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/67914249/3571055/rozporzadzenie-1186-2009-ustanawiajace-wspolnotowy-system-zwolnien-celnych-wersja-ujednolicona?keyword=Rozporzadzenie%C4%85dzenie%201186%2F2009%20ustanawiaj%C4%85ce%20ws%C3%B3lnotowy%20system%20zwolnie%C5%84%20celnych%20(wersja%20ujednolicona)&searchPit=2026-07-15

Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 9 October 2013 laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 269, 2013, p. 1, as amended). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/68359246/176766672/rozporzadzenie-952-2013-ustanawiajace-unijny-kodeks-celny?keyword=Rozporz%C4%85dzenie%20952%2F2013%20ustanawiaj%C4%85ce%20unijny%20kodeks%20celny%20z%201%20maja%202016%20&searchPit=2026-07-15

Commission Implementing Regulation (EU) 2015/2447 of 24 November 2015 laying down detailed rules for implementing certain provisions of Regulation (EU) No 952/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the Union Customs Code (OJ L 343, 2015, p. 558, as amended). https://sip.lex.pl/#/act/68591768/181445989/rozporzadzenie-wykonawcze-2015-2447-ustanawiajace-szczegolowe-zasady-wykonania-niektorych…?keyword=Rozporzadzenie%20wykonawcze%202015%2F2447%20z%201%20maja%202016%20&searchPit=2026-07-15

Ministry of Finance. (2021, September 1). Tax clarifications regarding the so-called VAT e-commerce package introduced by the Act of May 20, 2021, amending the Act on Value Added Tax and certain other acts (Journal of Laws, item 1163) . https://www.podatki.gov.pl

Judgment of the Supreme Administrative Court in Szczecin of 17 March 1999, SA/ Sz 1731/98, M.Podat. 2000, no. 5, item 29.

https://sip.lex.pl/#/jurisprudence/520132316/1?directHit=true&directHitQuery=SA%2FSZ%201731%2F98

Artykuł A well-aimed shot at American e-commerce. A practical guide to customs clearance of US shipments through the Polish Post. pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

1. Reports only via e-Sanepid

Every dietary supplement introduced to the market for the first time must be reported to the Chief Sanitary Inspector (GIS). Until now, various forms were acceptable – paper or electronic, with a handwritten or electronic signature. After the amendment comes into effect, the only acceptable method will be the e-Sanepid platform.

What does this mean in practice?

• It is necessary for each person submitting notifications to have a qualified electronic signature or a trusted profile.
• All communication with sanitary inspection bodies – letters, decisions, and confirmations – will be handled through the platform account. The moment of notification submission will be clearly confirmed with an official receipt, eliminating disputes over the deadline.
• Companies that have previously used paper forms or traditional correspondence must immediately switch to the new channel and ensure appropriate employee training.

The change also concerns the timing of the notification obligation: the previous option to notify the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS) at the stage of intended product introduction is no longer available. The obligation now arises at the time of actual introduction to the market.

2. Strict deadlines and automatic presumption of irregularities

The amendment introduces a completely new mechanism for conducting investigations. This change has the greatest potential to surprise companies without effective internal compliance procedures.

How does the new mechanism work?

If the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate initiates an investigation and requests the entity to submit a scientific opinion, the company has exactly 14 days to submit an application to an accredited scientific unit – at the same time forwarding a copy of it to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate.

The mechanism for presuming irregularities is a significant innovation. Previously, a company’s inaction during the proceedings did not automatically result in any legal consequences – the proceedings could drag on for years. Following the amendment, any failure to meet the 14-day deadline will lead to direct negative consequences, regardless of whether the product is safe.

3. Advertising without reporting? A fine of nearly one million zlotys

This change directly impacts brands engaging in active digital marketing. Previously, advertising or presenting a dietary supplement without prior notification to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS) was punishable by a fine (a misdemeanor). Following the amendment, this becomes grounds for imposing an administrative fine – with new, significantly higher penalties.

What exactly is prohibited?

The amendment penalizes not only the sale of a supplement without reporting it to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS), but also the mere advertising or presentation of it if the notification has not been effectively submitted. In other words:

• Sponsored post on Instagram or Facebook promoting a new supplement before notification = grounds for an administrative penalty.
• Product page in the online store visible to the public before successful reporting to GIS = risk of infringement.
• Promotional materials sent to wholesalers or distributors before GIS is notified = potential infringement.
• Influencer marketing initiated before the date of effective notification = liability on the part of the entity commissioning the campaign.

Prohibition on suggesting medicinal properties – wider scope

The amendment expands liability for violations of advertising requirements from labeling to the entire marketing message. Previously, sanctions primarily covered incorrect packaging labeling. Following the amendment, a company is responsible for every communication channel – online advertising, point-of-sale materials, newsletters, or YouTube videos – if the message suggests that a varied diet does not provide sufficient nutrients, or if a supplement is presented as a medicinal product.

4. Public register – the company’s reputation under public scrutiny

The Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS) has maintained a register of dietary supplements before, but the amendment will significantly expand its scope and availability. The data will be published on the e-Sanepid platform and will include:

• the name of the product and its qualitative composition (without quantitative data – the recipe remains protected),
• product qualification proposed by the entity,
• information about the initiation or ongoing investigation,
• data on the detection of a prohibited ingredient.

5. Fines – increase by over 330%

The maximum administrative fine for violating food safety regulations is increasing from 30 to 100 times the average monthly salary. At the current salary level, this means:

The new penalties are imposed administratively (not as fiscal or misdemeanor offenses), which means faster proceedings and no need to prove intentional guilt. A mere finding of a violation is sufficient. The increased level of sanctions has a real deterrent effect, especially for companies with turnover in the tens of millions of zlotys.

The biggest risks – a practical overview

Artykuł CLIENT ALERT Dietary supplements market in Poland Amendments to food safety regulations | May 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Just a few years ago, online store owners primarily had to ensure terms and conditions, privacy policies, and efficient order processing. Today, this is clearly not enough. EU regulations such as the Omnibus Directive and the Digital Services Act (DSA), as well as the increasing role of artificial intelligence in assessing store credibility, force businesses to consider their platforms much more broadly. It is no longer just about regulatory compliance, but also about building digital trust, which influences a store’s visibility, legal security, and customer purchasing decisions. Below, we present a practical checklist of the most important actions to implement to reduce the risk of sanctions and increase the credibility of an online store.

Practical guidelines for online store owners

I.            Avoiding UOKiK fines and compliance with the Omnibus Directive

a. Implement transactional verification: You should configure your feedback system so that each review you post is technically linked to the unique order number and email address of the customer who actually completed the purchase.

b. Updating the content of the regulations: In the “Rules for publishing opinions” section, the verification procedure should be described in detail, whether all opinions (including critical ones) are published and how the average product rating is calculated.

c. Transparent labeling: Each review should have a clear status indication (e.g., “Purchase confirmed”). If a benefit is provided in exchange for reviews (e.g., a discount code), this information must be clearly and prominently displayed within the review text.

d. Lowest price mechanism: In accordance with the requirements of price transparency, each discount must display the lowest price of the product that was valid in the 30 days prior to the introduction of the discount.

Legal basis: Act of 30 May 2014 on consumer rights ( Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1796, as amended); Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules (OJ EU L 328 of 2019, No. 328, p. 7, as amended); Act of 23 August 2007 on counteracting unfair market practices ( i.e. Journal of Laws of 2023, item 845).

II.            Ensuring compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA)

a. Implementing a “report content” mechanism: Every review or user-generated content must have an easily accessible button to report suspected illegality or manipulation of the content.

b. Procedure for justifying decisions: In the event of deletion of an opinion or blocking of a user account, the platform is obliged to send the author a detailed justification indicating a specific violation of the regulations or legal provisions.

c. Internal Complaints Process: Users must be able to appeal moderation decisions for a period of at least 6 months from the date the platform takes action.

d. Designation of a contact point: The entrepreneur must designate an electronic contact point for supervisory authorities and users, enabling efficient communication on matters relating to digital security.

Legal basis: Regulation (EU) 2022/2065 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 19 October 2022 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ EU L 277, 2022, No. 277, p. 1, as amended), in particular Articles 16, 17 and 20.

III.            Reducing the risk of “algorithmic exclusion”

a. Design Patterns (UX) Audit: Eliminate so-called dark patterns, such as asymmetric selector buttons, hard-to-close pop-ups, or mechanisms that make it difficult to unsubscribe. Supervisory algorithms treat such practices as signals of poor interface quality.

b. Data Certification for AI: Ensure structured review data is provided, allowing shopping assistants and crawlers to properly verify the “digital provenance” of the data.

c. Filtering synthetically generated content: It is worth implementing tools that monitor review language for bot-like patterns (unnatural correctness, lack of detail) to avoid indexing false enthusiasm that results in lower trust rankings.

Legal basis: REGULATION (EU) 2022/2065 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 October 2022 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ EU L 277, 2022, p. 1, as amended) – Article 25 (prohibition of deceptive interfaces)

IV.            Proper management of data and opinions (CaaS model)

a. Digital Audit Trail: It is recommended to store logs containing transaction metadata related to opinions for a period enabling verification of data reliability (e.g. 12-24 months).

b. Active mediation systems: Instead of deleting negative feedback, use complaint management systems that document the process of resolving customer disputes. Resolving a problem is treated by ranking systems as evidence of high-quality service.

c.       “Know Your Business Customer” principle: When running a marketplace model, it is essential to verify the identity of sellers before allowing them to offer goods, collecting registration numbers and contact details.

Legal basis: REGULATION (EU) 2022/2065 OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND OF THE COUNCIL of 19 October 2022 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ EU L of 2022, No. 277, p. 1, as amended) – Article 30; Regulation (EU) 2016/679 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 April 2016 on the protection of natural persons with regard to the processing of personal data and on the free movement of such data, and repealing Directive 95/46/EC (General Data Protection Regulation) (OJ EU L of 2016, No. 119, p. 1, as amended).

Artykuł Is Your Online Store Ready for the New Era of Control? A Practical Guide to E-Commerce Responsibilities in 2026 pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The dynamic development of artificial intelligence-based technologies is revolutionizing not only the commercial sector but also the area of state oversight of the digital market. The implementation of multi-agent systems by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) opens a new era in consumer rights enforcement, enabling the mass and automated identification of unfair market practices. With the Digital Services Act (DSA) and the Omnibus Directive in force, traditional control methods are giving way to algorithmic interface analysis aimed at eliminating so-called dark patterns and price manipulation. However, the use of “digital controllers” raises fundamental questions for legal science and business practice about the limits of automated decision-making processes in public administration. Although AI agents significantly improve the effectiveness of detecting violations, their legal status as a source of evidence remains the subject of heated debate. The main thesis is that while AI can be a powerful auxiliary tool for regulatory bodies, the ultimate responsibility for determining the facts and assessing the legitimate interests of a party must rest with humans, which is the foundation of a fair procedure in a state governed by the rule of law.

Dark Patterns: Legal and Ethical Aspects of Prohibiting Manipulation in Digital Interfaces

A key obligation of internet platform providers in light of modern regulations is to design interfaces in a transparent and ethical manner. The prohibition of manipulation, formulated, among others, in the Digital Services Act (Article 25), directly affects the structure of so-called deceptive interfaces (dark patterns). Websites and applications cannot be designed in a way that limits the recipient’s cognitive autonomy, interferes with their ability to rationally assess the situation, or forces them to make a purchasing decision that they would not have made under other circumstances.

One of the most glaring examples of such violations is the asymmetry in the contract conclusion and termination process, particularly evident in subscription models. This mechanism relies on extreme simplification of the purchase path while simultaneously mounting procedural barriers when attempting to cancel the service. Visual techniques are used here, among other things: payment activation buttons are highlighted with bright colors and a central location, while contract termination options are deliberately hidden at the bottom of the page, written in small font or masked with colors that blend with the background. Furthermore, canceling a subscription on online platforms often requires multiple selections or confirmation of the desire to cancel, despite the consumer’s prior explicit choice. Artificial intelligence algorithms, analyzing the page structure and visual hierarchy of elements, can pinpoint these disparities with mathematical precision, creating a list of violations that serves as hard evidence.

In the context of the Omnibus Directive, the obligation to disclose the lowest price 30 days before the discount has become a market standard, but its implementation is open to abuse. The practice of “empty promotions” involves artificially inflating the base price just before a planned discount or providing a false reference amount. In this area, AI agents demonstrate particular effectiveness, acting as real-time monitoring systems; they can archive the price history of each product, creating an independent database. Comparing this information with the entrepreneur’s declaration visible on the website allows for immediate detection of manipulation of the promotional algorithm.

An equally important area of control is the phenomenon of drip pricing , or hiding the real costs of a transaction until the final stage of the shopping cart. Businesses often employ a “decoy” strategy, presenting an attractive unit price, which, at the time of order finalization, is increased by mandatory, previously undisclosed costs, such as service fees, packaging costs, or payment processing fees. Pursuant to Article 12 of the Consumer Rights Act, businesses are obligated to clearly and understandably inform consumers about, among other things, the total price for the proposed service. Automated control systems are capable of conducting a full simulation of the purchasing process, from product selection to the payment gateway. Any discrepancy between the price presented in the product list and the amount required to complete the contract is reported by AI as an attempt to circumvent disclosure obligations and a direct violation of the collective interests of consumers.

According to Article 5 of the Act on Combating Unfair Market Practices, the key criterion for assessing a trader’s behavior is the impact of their actions on the recipient’s decision-making process. A market practice is considered misleading if “this action in any way causes or is likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision that they would not otherwise have made”. The legislator specifies that both “spreading false information” and “spreading true information in a manner that is likely to be misleading” can constitute an infringement. In the digital environment, these manipulations most often focus on the “existence of a product, its type, or availability.” A common method of exerting unjustified pressure on consumers is the use of social proof mechanisms and an artificial sense of scarcity. This manifests itself in messages such as: “this product is now being viewed by x people,” “x items have already been purchased today,” or displaying timers indicating that “only 30 minutes left until the end of the promotion.” Particularly problematic from the perspective of trade ethics is the use of so-called false advertising. Timers – clocks counting down to the finale of a supposedly unique price opportunity. In reality, these are fake mechanisms, as after the specified deadline, the offer remains active and the product price remains unchanged or becomes even more favorable. This type of activity, a classic example of dark patterns, is designed to induce fear of missing out (FOMO) in customers and induce them to rush into a transaction. Using AI agents allows regulators to serially monitor such counters and prove their cyclical recurrence, providing direct evidence of deceptive practices.

The algorithm as a controller

With millions of transactions taking place across the country in just a few minutes or hours, standard order verification procedures prove insufficient to effectively fulfill the statutory responsibilities of supervisory authorities. Technological advancements in the form of AI algorithms come to the rescue. These algorithms can automatically monitor numerous commercial transactions simultaneously, generating preliminary opinions that are ultimately subject to human review. Such systems not only save significant processing time but, above all, enable oversight of a much broader range of businesses and their online platforms. The AI multi-agents used in this process are virtual “consumer robots” capable of mass-auditing e-commerce websites, simulating the natural behavior of online users to detect irregularities that a human controller would be unable to detect on such a large scale.

To conduct reliable and effective inspections, Polish law already offers supervisory authorities a toolkit in the form of the “mystery shopper” institution. Traditionally, this involves a person unrelated to the inspected company or the inspecting authority making a purchase and then completing a survey regarding specific activities they observe during standard shopping. The implementation of AI technology by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) aims to entrust AI multi-agents with the role of such digital “mystery shoppers.” Their task is to interact with the website interface, add a product to the cart, and complete the entire purchasing process without disclosing that this activity is being performed by an algorithm or that it is part of an official inspection procedure. This approach allows for direct verification of whether the entrepreneur is not using prohibited manipulative practices, known as dark patterns. However, it should be emphasized that the activity of AI multi-agents is strictly regulated by legal procedures and cannot be arbitrary. The algorithm operates under the strict supervision of the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, who, pursuant to Article 105ia of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection, must always obtain prior consent from the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection. This mechanism serves as a key safeguard against abuse of power. Furthermore, after completing the inspection, the office is obligated to immediately provide the entrepreneur with an official ID and authorization for the inspection. In the age of digital administration, this obligation can be fulfilled electronically immediately after the AI multi-agents withdraw from the sales platform.

The key legal framework for the operation of algorithms commissioned by the regulator is provided by the EU AI Act. According to its provisions, AI systems used by public authorities for control and supervisory purposes should be considered high-risk AI systems. This entails a strict requirement to design them with appropriate transparency, which allows both the controlling and the controlled entities to properly interpret the system’s results and use them fairly. In practice, this means that algorithms must be built in an “explainable” model. A business subject to allegations based on an algorithmic audit has the statutory right to request full insight into the operation of AI tools. This transparency is essential for the controlled entity to understand the basis and criteria on which the authority deemed its online platform unfair or infringing on the collective interests of consumers (Article 24). This balance between the effectiveness of digital supervision and the right to defense is the foundation of a modern rule of law in the age of algorithms.

The opinion of AI multi-agents as evidence in the case

After completing the inspection activities on the entrepreneur’s online platform, the AI algorithm’s role evolves towards an analytical function, consisting of preparing an opinion indicating detected violations. In the context of potential proceedings against an entity employing unfair market practices, the admissibility of using such an analysis as valid evidence becomes a key issue. Pursuant to Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (hereinafter referred to as the Code of Administrative Procedure), which establishes the principle of objective truth, a public administration body is obligated to take all steps necessary to thoroughly clarify the factual circumstances. This obligation is consistent with Article 75 § 1 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, which introduces an open catalog of evidence, allowing as evidence anything that may contribute to the clarification of the case, provided it is not contrary to the law.

Under these regulations, the results of AI multi-agent work – taking the form of reports, opinions, or analyses generated after conducting an audit with court approval – fully fall within the statutory definition of evidence. However, it should be clearly stated that an AI opinion cannot be equated with an expert opinion within the meaning of Article 84 of the Code of Administrative Procedure. This stems from the fact that an algorithm does not possess the status of a natural person equipped with specialized knowledge, which is a statutory requirement for appointing an expert. Instead, documentation generated by an AI agent should be classified as a private document or so-called “unnamed evidence.”

Practical justification for this position can be found in the case law concerning digital evidence. The judgment of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of September 19, 2016, I ACa 364/15, LEX no. 2147337 aptly describes this issue, pointing out that evidence in a case may include official and private documents, but also means other than those listed in Articles 305-308 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Electronic evidence, currently increasingly used in civil proceedings, is not explicitly listed in the catalog of means of evidence. However, the Code of Civil Procedure does not contain a closed list of evidence sources; anything relevant to the case may constitute evidence. Although the above ruling was issued in the context of civil procedure, due to the identical approach to the openness of the evidence system, it remains fully applicable to administrative proceedings conducted by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection.

The key element of algorithmic evidence remains the human factor, which serves as a primary safeguard over the autonomous operation of technology. It’s important to note that AI multi-agents, despite their high sophistication, operate based on statistical probability models, which carries the risk of misinterpreting dynamic website elements. For example, the system may incorrectly classify a standard technical error as intentional dark web activity. patterns or misinterpret the interface’s intentions in a specific cultural or linguistic context. Therefore, opinions generated by AI agents cannot constitute a standalone and final basis for a decision, but should be subjected to thorough, critical review by an official. Only such a comparison of the “raw” algorithmic result with human knowledge and experience allows for avoiding errors that could lead to unjustified penalties. This approach is directly supported by Article 80 of the Code of Administrative Procedure, according to which a public administration body assesses whether a given circumstance has been proven based on the entirety of the evidence. In this process, the “AI opinion” is only one of many components that must be weighed against other evidence and evaluated through the prism of principles of logic and life experience, ultimately guaranteeing the implementation of the principle of objective truth and protecting the entrepreneur from the automaticity of decisions made by the algorithm.

Summary

Multi-agent system implemented by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection for automatic control of the e-commerce sector poses a significant challenge for entrepreneurs, forcing strict compliance with regulations regarding dark patterns, price transparency (Omnibus Directive, Art. 6a) and information obligations (Consumer Rights Act, Art. 12). These tools are used to mass detect manipulative practices such as drip pricing, fake timers or making it difficult to unsubscribe. Although AI agents perform a function similar to “mystery shoppers,” their activity must meet the rigors of Article 105ia of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection, including the requirement to obtain court consent for a controlled purchase. What is crucial from a procedural perspective is that the findings made by the algorithm do not have the status of an expert opinion within the meaning of Article 84 of the Code of Administrative Procedure (lack of the status of a natural person with specialist knowledge), but constitute only a private document or “other evidence” subject to the authority’s free assessment (Article 80 of the Code of Administrative Procedure).

Consequently, the official is required to subject AI reports to thorough human review to eliminate the risk of misclassification resulting from so-called “AI hallucinations” or technical errors in the interpretation of the website’s code. The entrepreneur has full rights of defense based on the principle of active participation of the party (Article 10 of the Code of Administrative Procedure) and the principle of objective truth (Article 7 of the Code of Administrative Procedure), which means the right to question the bot’s logic and to access the instructions and parameters of the AI system, in accordance with the “explainability” requirement enshrined in the AI Act (Article 13). Any decision based solely on the automated generation of conclusions, without providing the party with an opportunity to comment on the evidence (Article 81 of the Code of Administrative Procedure), constitutes a gross violation of administrative procedure and may constitute an effective basis for challenging the authority’s decision.

Sources:

Regulation 2022/2065 on the single market for digital services and amending Directive 2000/31/EC (Digital Services Act) (OJ EU L 277, 2022, No. 277, p. 1, as amended).

Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules (OJ L 328, 2019, p. 7, as amended).

Act of 30 May 2014 on consumer rights (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2024, item 1796, as amended).

Act of 23 August 2007 on counteracting unfair market practices (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2023, item 845).

Act of 16 February 2007 on competition and consumer protection (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 1714).

Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 13 June 2024 laying down harmonised rules on artificial intelligence and amending Regulations (EC) No 300/2008, (EU) No 167/2013, (EU) No 168/2013, (EU) 2018/858, (EU) 2018/1139 and (EU) 2019/2144 and Directives 2014/90/EU, (EU) 2016/797 and (EU) 2020/1828 (Artificial Intelligence Act) Text with EEA relevance (OJ L 1689, 2024).

Act of 14 June 1960, the Code of Administrative Procedure (consolidated text: Journal of Laws of 2025, item 1691).

Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Szczecin of 19 September 2016, I ACa 364/15, LEX no. 2147337.

Artykuł Multi-agent system in the service of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection – a new era of e-commerce control and the limits pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

The Polish dietary supplements market is facing the most significant regulatory overhaul in years. The draft amendment to the Act on Food and Nutrition Safety and the Act on the State Sanitary Inspectorate introduces a series of far-reaching changes that will substantially alter the way supplements are notified, monitored, advertised, and supervised in Poland. While the reform does not formally introduce a pre-market authorization system, it undeniably strengthens the position of regulatory authorities and increases the compliance burden imposed on businesses operating in the sector.

The amendment, expected to enter into force six months after publication, reflects both domestic concerns regarding the rapid expansion of the supplements market and the broader European trend toward stricter food safety oversight. For manufacturers, importers, distributors, and marketing agencies, the proposed changes may require a complete reassessment of internal procedures, legal risk management, and commercial strategy.

The reform arrives at a time when the Polish dietary supplements market continues to expand at an exceptional pace. Poland has become one of the largest supplement consumers in the European Union, both in terms of total market value and per capita spending. According to market estimates, the sector exceeded PLN 7 billion in value in 2024 and is expected to continue growing steadily over the coming years. The scale of the market alone has become a challenge for regulators. Between 2017 and 2020, more than 62,000 supplement notifications were submitted to the Chief Sanitary Inspectorate (GIS), while the number of products listed in official registers exceeded 29,000.

At the same time, authorities increasingly pointed to systemic weaknesses in the existing framework. Under the current rules, a business may place a dietary supplement on the market immediately after submitting a notification to GIS, even if doubts exist regarding the product’s composition or classification. The authorities may initiate explanatory proceedings, but the product can still remain commercially available during the investigation. In practice, this system has often been criticized for providing insufficient preventive control and allowing potentially problematic products to circulate before any meaningful assessment takes place.

Another major concern involved the widespread use of aggressive advertising strategies. For years, the dietary supplements industry has been accused of blurring the line between supplements and medicinal products. Many advertisements indirectly suggested therapeutic effects or implied that supplements could substitute proper medical treatment or balanced nutrition. Regulators and pharmaceutical companies repeatedly argued that existing penalties were too low to deter large market participants from engaging in questionable promotional practices.

The lack of a centralized digital supervision system also contributed to inefficiencies. The notification process relied partly on outdated administrative mechanisms, resulting in difficulties with document verification, inconsistent communication, and lengthy proceedings. The new amendment seeks to address these concerns through digitalization, stricter procedural obligations, and substantially higher financial sanctions.

One of the most visible changes introduced by the reform is the mandatory use of the e-Sanepid platform for all supplement notifications. Until now, notifications could be submitted either electronically or in paper form, and businesses had some flexibility regarding the form and timing of submission. Under the new rules, however, the process becomes fully digitized. Notifications will only be accepted through the e-Sanepid system and will require either a qualified electronic signature or a trusted electronic profile.

This change may appear largely technical at first glance, but in reality it significantly increases the formalization of the entire notification process. For large companies with developed compliance departments, adapting to electronic communication systems is unlikely to create serious difficulties. Smaller businesses, however, may face operational and financial challenges connected with digital authentication tools, procedural monitoring, and document management requirements.

The amendment also changes the moment at which the notification obligation arises. Previously, the law referred both to products already introduced to the market and those merely intended for future introduction. The new wording removes the reference to “intended introduction,” meaning that the obligation will arise only once the product is actually being placed on the market. Although this clarification simplifies the legal interpretation of the obligation, it also narrows the flexibility businesses previously enjoyed when planning product launches.

Perhaps the most consequential aspect of the reform concerns explanatory proceedings and scientific opinions. Under the current framework, businesses could effectively delay proceedings indefinitely by postponing the submission of required scientific documentation. While the law imposed certain deadlines on the authorities themselves, it did not establish sufficiently strict obligations for the notifying entity. This created situations where proceedings remained unresolved for years, significantly limiting the effectiveness of supervision.

The amendment introduces a much stricter procedural regime. Once GIS requests a scientific opinion regarding a product’s classification or compliance, the business will have only 14 days to submit an application to a scientific institution or to the President of the Office for Registration of Medicinal Products. Furthermore, the scientific opinion itself must generally be issued within six months, with an absolute maximum period of twelve months in exceptional cases.

The most significant innovation is the introduction of a legal presumption against the entrepreneur. If the entity fails to submit the application for an opinion within the required 14-day period, the law will automatically presume that the proposed classification of the product is incorrect and that the product does not meet the requirements applicable to its category. In practical terms, procedural inactivity itself may lead to negative legal consequences.

This fundamentally changes the balance between businesses and regulatory authorities. Previously, delaying the process often worked in favor of companies by allowing products to remain on the market while proceedings continued. Under the new rules, inaction may immediately weaken the entrepreneur’s legal position. Businesses will therefore need to implement much stricter internal monitoring systems to ensure compliance with procedural deadlines.

The amendment additionally prohibits businesses from circumventing the procedure by repeatedly submitting notifications for identical products. Once proceedings are initiated, companies will no longer be able to submit another notification concerning a product with the same qualitative and quantitative composition. Similarly, withdrawing a notification will not allow the entrepreneur to restart the process with the same formula at a later stage. These restrictions are intended to eliminate procedural abuse and prevent companies from avoiding regulatory scrutiny through repeated filings.

Another major reform concerns transparency and the expansion of the public product register maintained within the SEPIS system. The current register already contains certain information regarding notified products, but the scope of publicly available data remains relatively limited. The new system significantly broadens the amount of information accessible to consumers and competitors alike.

Under the amendment, the register will include the product name, form of the product, qualitative composition, information regarding active substances, details concerning explanatory proceedings, and information about prohibited ingredients. Although quantitative composition data and certain identifying information regarding the reporting entity will remain confidential, the reform nevertheless represents a substantial increase in market transparency.

From the consumer protection perspective, this may be viewed as a positive development. Consumers will gain easier access to information about supplement composition and regulatory status, potentially allowing for more informed purchasing decisions. However, from the business perspective, the new transparency rules create considerable reputational risks. Information regarding ongoing explanatory proceedings may become publicly visible long before any final administrative decision is issued. As a result, companies may face reputational damage even in situations where no violation is ultimately confirmed.

The reform also updates the broader inspection framework to align Polish law with Regulation (EU) 2017/625 on official controls. Although the regulation has already been directly applicable across the European Union since 2019, several references in Polish legislation still pointed to repealed EU acts. The amendment therefore modernizes the legal terminology and adapts national provisions to the currently binding European framework.

Importantly, however, the changes do not significantly expand the substantive powers of sanitary authorities. The amendment primarily introduces terminological adjustments, extending references from “official food controls” to “official controls and other official activities.” Sanitary authorities will continue to possess extensive powers during inspections, including access to facilities, examination of production processes and documentation, and collection of samples for laboratory testing.

The reform does, however, expand the situations in which businesses must bear the costs of inspections and administrative activities. In addition to existing obligations related to violations, follow-up inspections, and border sanitary controls, businesses will now also be required to cover costs associated with official activities performed at their own request, such as the issuance of certain documents. While this change may appear relatively modest compared to other parts of the reform, it nevertheless contributes to the overall increase in operational costs for market participants.

One of the most controversial elements of the amendment concerns advertising and marketing practices. The reform significantly broadens the scope of administrative liability related to the promotion and presentation of dietary supplements. Previously, penalties focused primarily on incorrect product labeling. Under the new rules, liability will explicitly extend to advertising, online promotion, social media activities, and the overall presentation of products.

Most importantly, the amendment introduces severe sanctions for advertising or presenting a supplement before notifying GIS. This is likely to have a major impact on digital marketing strategies commonly used in the supplements industry. Influencer campaigns, online pre-launch promotions, teaser advertisements, and social media product announcements may all potentially fall within the scope of the new sanctions if conducted before formal notification.

The amendment also reinforces existing prohibitions against suggesting that a balanced diet cannot provide sufficient nutrients or implying medicinal properties of supplements. Although these prohibitions already existed under current law, the reform significantly strengthens enforcement mechanisms by attaching much higher financial penalties to violations.

Indeed, the increase in administrative penalties represents one of the most dramatic aspects of the reform. Under the current framework, the maximum administrative fine generally amounts to thirty times the average monthly salary. The amendment raises this threshold to one hundred times the average salary, increasing potential penalties by more than 330 percent.

Based on current economic indicators, maximum fines could exceed PLN 800,000. Such amounts are clearly intended to function as genuinely deterrent sanctions rather than symbolic administrative measures. For large corporations with extensive marketing operations, these penalties may significantly alter risk calculations related to aggressive advertising or borderline compliance practices.

For businesses operating in the supplements sector, the cumulative impact of these changes may be substantial. Compliance costs are likely to increase considerably. Companies may need to invest in legal advisory services, digital infrastructure, scientific assessments, employee training, and enhanced compliance monitoring systems. Marketing departments in particular will face increased scrutiny and will need to carefully verify advertising content before publication.

The reform may also contribute to market consolidation. Large, well-established companies are generally better positioned to absorb increased compliance costs and adapt to stricter regulatory requirements. Smaller businesses, startups, and niche supplement brands may struggle with the financial and administrative burden created by the new framework. As a result, the amendment could unintentionally reduce market diversity and strengthen the competitive position of major industry players.

From the perspective of public authorities, the reform aims to improve the efficiency and credibility of food safety supervision. Digitalization through e-Sanepid and SEPIS is expected to accelerate administrative processes, improve data analysis capabilities, and strengthen market oversight. The introduction of strict procedural deadlines should also reduce the risk of excessively lengthy proceedings and administrative disputes.

At the same time, the implementation of these systems will require significant investments in technological infrastructure and administrative capacity. The effectiveness of the reform will therefore depend not only on the wording of the legislation itself, but also on the practical ability of GIS and related institutions to manage the new digital environment efficiently.

Ultimately, the amendment does not formally transform dietary supplements into products requiring prior authorization before market entry. Businesses will still be able to introduce supplements through a notification-based system rather than a licensing procedure. Nevertheless, the practical reality of operating in the sector is likely to change considerably.

The reform substantially increases the procedural obligations imposed on businesses, strengthens enforcement tools available to authorities, raises financial exposure connected with non-compliance, and introduces far greater transparency into the market. While these changes may improve consumer protection and market oversight, they also create new operational and reputational risks for entrepreneurs.

For companies active in the supplements industry, the coming months may therefore become a critical period of preparation. Businesses that fail to adapt quickly to the new regulatory environment may face not only financial penalties, but also significant disruptions to their commercial operations and marketing strategies.

Artykuł Dietary Supplements Under Tightened Scrutiny: How the 2026 Reform Could Reshape the Polish Market pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.

Competition and consumer protection are a crucial issue for businesses and the consumers who use their services. On July 7, 2025, the President of the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection issued two binding decisions against PayPal.

A PayPal account created by a user acts as an electronic wallet integrated with their bank account. A payment card can be linked to this virtual wallet. Besides connecting their bank card, the user can simply top up their digital wallet using funds from their own, previously held bank account. Furthermore, the services offered by this application include the ability to exchange currencies – currently, payments in over 20 currencies are possible.

Unfortunately, on the other hand, it’s impossible not to encounter consumer opinions discouraging people from using the company’s services. Confusion over the company’s unfair practices persists not only in Poland. According to information from various sources, a forum has even been established for users dissatisfied with the lack of integrity in PayPal’s market operations.

In Poland, matters of unfair market conduct by entrepreneurs towards consumers are dealt with by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (hereinafter referred to as the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) with the assistance of the Office for Competition and Consumer Protection (auxiliary body to the President). This office was established by the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection of 16 February 2007 (Journal of Laws of 2007, No. 50, item 331). Not only does the Act establish the office itself, but it also provides its holder with a range of possible actions to enforce obligations arising from so-called semi -imperative provisions (ensuring a certain minimum protection for the weaker party, in this case consumers) by, for example, authorizing the issuance of decisions requiring an entrepreneur to take actions aimed at eliminating an unlawful state of affairs, refraining from further infringements, and providing appropriate compensation to consumers affected by a given practice.

However, explaining all the possible actions is not the subject of this article. Rather, the purpose of this text is to cite the last two decisions recently issued by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) against PayPal.

First and foremost, it is worth mentioning that, as noted above, the company has been the subject of significant controversy related to its practices. In addition to two binding decisions, the content of which will be cited later in this text, the company has already been subject to one significant fine. The reason for the decision by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) was the company’s use of prohibited contractual provisions in its contracts.

Prohibited contractual clauses are provisions considered null and void if they are deemed so by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. Provisions regarding prohibited contractual clauses are contained in the Civil Code, which contains a non-exhaustive list of such clauses, and in the register of prohibited contractual clauses maintained by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. The definition of a prohibited contractual clause is contained in Article 385¹, which defines them as provisions not individually agreed upon with the consumer, shaping the legal relationship between the parties, contrary to good practice and grossly infringing the consumer’s interests. Importantly, this inconsistency, in conjunction with Article 385² of the Civil Code, is assessed at the time of conclusion of the contract. Under other provisions of the Code, these provisions are not binding on the consumer. The rest of the contract, of course, remains in effect.

Such provisions will most often appear in standard contract forms, which can be described as a “means of wholesale contract conclusion” commonly used by service providers with large customer bases, such as banks. Protective provisions are justified by the contractual advantage of the entrepreneur over the consumer.

Returning to the first case involving the above-mentioned company, the clauses used by PayPal in consumer contracts were deemed abusive and resulted in a fine of PLN 106.6 million imposed by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK). The decision was based on very general conditions, under which the company could impose high fines on users of up to USD 2,500 or more, block funds in a given account at the company’s discretion for an indefinite period, close the account, and “blacklist” (i.e., potentially deny service in the future). These vaguely defined prohibited actions meant that consumers were unsure of their situation and what to expect – too many actions were subject to the trader’s discretion, and according to existing requirements, contractual provisions should be as transparent, clear, and understandable to consumers as possible, ideally to such an extent that the weaker contracting party could clearly define what to expect in the event of an action contrary to the contract.

Let us therefore move on, after outlining the profile of PayPal and the consumer law controversies related to this entity, to discuss the most important issue in this article, i.e. the analysis of the last two decisions obliging the company to take specific actions and the legal basis for these decisions.

To introduce the analysis of the decisions issued by the Polish authority, it is necessary to cite the legal basis for the first decision[1], namely Article 24 in conjunction with Article 28 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection (Journal of Laws 2024, item 1616). The first provision prohibits the use of practices that violate collective consumer interests, as set out in paragraph 1. Paragraph 3, however, indicates what does not constitute a violation of these interests, namely, the violation of individual consumer interests. Furthermore, it is important to indicate here what the concept of violation of collective consumer interests encompasses in case law, the role of which is quite significant given the open-ended catalogue of such actions. The latest Supreme Court judgment indicates that not only a violation, but also a state of threat of violation, falls within this concept[2]. In addition, the collective nature of the infringement was also specified by the jurisdiction[3] (“In the light of Art. 24 sec. 1 of the Consumer Protection Act , the concept of “collective consumer interest” covers the infringement of consumer interests by the entrepreneur’s conduct, which is not undertaken towards individual consumers, but towards a specific group of entities (group of entities) that are consumers”).

The obligations of the non-consumer party towards consumers can be inferred by interpreting the provision of Art. 24 sec. 2 of the Act a contrario, from which it follows that the entrepreneur complies with the prohibition of infringing collective consumer interests if he provides consumers with reliable, full and true information, does not use unfair market practices[4] and actions constituting acts of unfair competition[5], and does not propose the purchase of financial services inconsistent with the needs of these consumers, determined on the basis of the characteristics of these consumers and in a manner inadequate to their nature. The second basis for issuing a decision by the President of the Consumer Protection Act is Art. 28 sec. 1, the obligation to submit on one’s behalf a commitment to refrain from making or taking specific actions in the event that, based on the circumstances of the case, a violation of the prohibition on infringing collective consumer interests is likely. In § 2 of the provision, the legislator authorizes the President of the Office to issue a decision requiring a professional party to a legal act to make a specific declaration or perform obligations.

Another important issue is the infringement committed by PayPal. This is important for cultivating consumer legal awareness and serves as a prelude to the analysis of the relevant provisions of the decision in points 2 to 11 of the President’s first decision. The Polish authority, pointed to the infringement of collective consumer interests through a violation of the provisions of the Payment Services Act. The company’s unlawful action consisted of a violation of Article 26, paragraph 1, in conjunction with Article 29, paragraph 1, of that Act.

What obligations do these provisions impose on entities providing such services? The first provision requires compliance with the information obligation by providing a paper version or a durable electronic medium. There is no doubt about the requirement for a paper version of the document, but the meaning of the term “durable electronic medium” may be unclear. Fortunately, Article 2, paragraph 30 of the same act provides a legal definition of this term. This refers to a medium that allows the user to store information addressed to them in a manner that allows access for a period appropriate to the purpose of producing the information and allows for the reproduction of the stored information in an unchanged form – as specified in the regulations. The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) cites a paper document, a memory card, a flash drive, an email message, or an attached file, e.g., in PDF format, as examples of such a medium.[6] It is important to note that a hyperlink alone does not meet the requirements of a durable electronic medium, as changes can be made on the website without the consumer’s knowledge before accepting the new terms. Furthermore, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) website provides supporting criteria for cases where there are doubts about the correctness of providing mandatory information via a durable medium. According to these guidelines, these criteria include the impossibility of making changes, direct access to the content in a timely manner (even after the contract is terminated), and trouble-free reproduction of the content in an unchanged form.

The second qualification of infringements used is Article 29, paragraph 1 of the Act, which states that the payment service provider should notify about planned changes to the contract no later than 2 months before the proposed planned changes come into force.

This is precisely the content of the decision “DECISION No. RPZ 2/2025”[7] issued by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. Point 1 of the decision states that the decision constitutes a unilateral commitment by PayPal to implement certain remedies, which will now be listed in turn. These actions are to be directed (as stated in point 1 of the decision) towards Polish Personal Account Holders who have a Polish Personal Account that is open on the date of fulfillment of the obligation in question, or who had a Polish Personal Account that was terminated or closed after January 1, 2019, but before the date of fulfillment of the obligation in question.

The first obligation related to the implementation of the decision is to refrain from further violations, referred to in Article 28 of the UOKiK, of the provisions contained in the violated provisions of the Payment Services Act (item 2 of the decision). Therefore, in the next case of unilateral amendment of the agreement, the company is obligated to send a Polish-language version of the amendment on a durable electronic medium. This is intended to dispel any doubts regarding the new agreement and to meet the conditions of clarity, comprehensibility, and transparency referred to in Article 26 of the Payment Services Act. The company is also obligated to inform the consumers affected by the decision (Former and Current Holders of Polish Personal Accounts) of the ineffectiveness of the unlawful amendments to the agreements that entered into force on January 1, 2019, in accordance with the detailed requirements set out by the President of the UOKiK in items 7-9 of this decision.

It is noticeable that the regulatory body wanted to ensure there were no doubts regarding the interpretation of the decision’s provisions, even by establishing templates for specific declarations and information to be provided by PayPal to specific groups of consumers. It is also worth noting that the declarations contain a device that appears to stigmatize unfair practices that violate collective consumer interests by publishing a link to the decision text and by “admitting” in a public statement that a decision requiring specific omissions from the regulatory body had been issued. Generally speaking, paragraphs 7 to 9 of the decision are not intended to address substantive issues, but merely to provide templates for declarations and “formal” requirements for implementing the issues indicated in other, more substantive paragraphs.

The next step the company was obligated to take was a key issue: the refund of fees charged under the amendments introduced to the agreement based on the prior modification clause, which was deemed abusive under Article 385§1,which defines an open-ended list of prohibited provisions. The fees introduced by PayPal included an inactivity fee, a fee for withdrawals to a US account, and currency exchange rate increases. It is also worth mentioning that this refund did not apply solely to the value of the increases, but was to be increased by 50%. Therefore, the company was obligated to refund 150% of the total value of the additional fees charged as a result of the application of the abusive modification clause. The refund was to be made to Polish Personal Accounts, but only if they had not been excluded. Whether an account has been disabled or not is determined by the following criteria: it is subject to a valid freezing, or seizure order issued by appropriate public authorities to prevent the movement of funds from or seize funds from certain accounts, or it is blocked as a result of sanctions imposed and enforced by government authorities or international organizations in jurisdictions in which PayPal is licensed or operates, or PayPal has filed a Suspicious Activity Report or Suspicious Transaction Report with the appropriate authorities . Transaction Report) from January 1, 2019 (as a reminder, this is the date of the introduction of changes infringing the collective interests of consumers), in accordance with applicable regulations. Furthermore, the amount of this refund is to be calculated individually by each customer, which means there is no option to collectively estimate the fees charged, divide them by the number of consumers, and allocate them equally to each. The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) anticipated the risk of the supervised body making its work easier at the expense of the individual interests of more disadvantaged consumers. In such a case, it is important to realize that more than one consumer could become enriched by the effects of the decision (one consumer would receive more in relation to the fees charged and become richer, but another consumer could receive much less than they lost if the estimated refund value were divided equally). This preventive measure also aligns with the principle that one cannot enrich oneself from harm. The deadline for repayment is 10 months. As noted in the decision, consumers do not need to take any legal action to obtain a refund, such as submitting a declaration of intent to receive a refund of amounts charged under the abusive clause. The refund procedure also took into account the case of individuals who have stopped using PayPal services. Those eligible for a refund were divided into two groups: Former Personal Account Holders and Existing Personal Account Holders. The former group was to receive a message to their last registered email address to establish the contact necessary to obtain a refund. This message was to contain a link to a dedicated payment service through which the refund was to be processed. According to the guidelines specified in the decision, this link was to be active for the next three months, during which the consumer could select a payment method and “seal the refund” without having to create a separate account (this is, of course, related to the requirement that consumers not take any action). The entire refund procedure, initiated by contacting them via this link, was to be completed within 72 hours of selecting the payment method. Furthermore, as part of its strictly information obligations, PayPal must inform all Former and Existing Personal Account Holders that, pursuant to the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, they are entitled to a refund of benefits.

The next obligation imposed by the first UOKiK decision was, of course, to discontinue the clause on additional fees for withdrawals to an American Bank account and the Inactivity Fee (changes introduced on December 16, 2020), as well as the increases in the inter-currency exchange rate introduced on January 1, 2019 (i.e., BFX, SFX, and AFX). PayPal was also required to reduce the BFX exchange rate fee to 2% for existing Personal Account Holders for a fixed period, the end of which was set by the authority at the time consumers recover 50% of the benefit referred to above. This decision deemed this provision abusive and cannot be used in consumer transactions within the meaning of Article 385 § 1 of the Civil Code.

Moreover, in the scope of issued commitment decisions, it is possible to specify the requirement of information obligation in the form of sending reports on the progress and implementation of activities to the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, which the control body has done.

The subject of the second decision issued that day by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) concerned the same event, but concerning a different aspect of the case. The prohibited fee provisions referred to in the above discussion of the first act were issued as a result of the introduction of a modification clause to the agreement, which read as follows:

“PayPal may make changes to this User Agreement and the other documents listed above from time to time.”

At first glance, such a clause seems somewhat vague. It is unclear what the time periods after which the contract can be amended are. The form of such an amendment is not specified in the modification clause, and the scope of such amendments is not specified. Such a contractual provision lacks transparency, comprehensibility, and unambiguity, nor does it clearly define the consumer’s situation or the extent to which they could be harmed by new provisions introduced “from time to time.” This is not the way consumer contracts are constructed.

The subject of this decision was to recognize the above contractual wording as abusive, which is not binding under the Polish Civil Code. The legal basis for determining the abusiveness of the clauses is Article 23a of the Consumer Protection Act and Article 358 § ¹ of the Civil Code.

Due to the similarity of the measures used in each of the decisions, it is worth focusing in the second case on the premises indicated by the authority as determining whether a given clause may constitute an unlawful provision.

Generally speaking, there is no significant difference between the obligations contained in the first decision and those contained in the second. In this case, the actions listed therein also boil down to informing affected consumers after the decision is issued and the clause’s ineffectiveness against them, committing to refunding funds collected as a result of these provisions, issuing informative statements, discontinuing the use of the clause in question, and committing to compensation. Furthermore, PayPal committed to establishing a website with frequently asked questions and to organizing a dedicated customer service department to ensure its proper operation.

In the justification for the decision, the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) outlined the factors that influenced his assessment of the prohibited provision in question. He cited the violation of public interest, the violation of Article 23a of the UOKiK, the inconsistency of the modification clause with good practice, and the gross violation of consumer interests.

The justification states that the entire matter is undoubtedly of a public law nature, therefore the basis for the President of the Office to initiate action is fully valid. Furthermore, it should be noted that after receiving notification of the initiation of the proceedings, the company declared its willingness to resolve the matter amicably, and a meeting was organized between company representatives and UOKiK staff. Following the arrangements reached during these deliberations, the President of the UOKiK decided to issue a decision under Article 23c of the UOKiK . In this procedure, the entrepreneur, on his own initiative, undertakes to take appropriate action before the authority issues a decision under

Article 23b of the UOKiK, i.e., to deem the contractual provision abusive. Furthermore, and for practical purposes, it is worth noting the grounds for deeming a contractual provision abusive, which are listed in the justification, namely:

1. the provision is applied by the entrepreneur towards consumers,
2. the provision does not apply to the main obligations of the parties that are formulated in an unambiguous manner,
3. the provision was not individually agreed,
4. the provision shapes the rights and obligations of the consumer in a way that is contrary to good practice,
5. the provision grossly violates the interests of the consumer.

In its decision, the authority also shows how these conditions were met, which is a significant element of justification and has substantive and practical value for entrepreneurs.

Ad. 1) The justification for this premise includes a reference to the Entrepreneurs’ Law Act. This refers to the legal definition of an entrepreneur, namely that an entrepreneur is a natural person, a legal person, or an organizational unit without legal personality, to whom a separate act grants legal capacity, conducting business activities (profit-making and organized activities carried out by one of the listed entities on a continuous basis and on its own behalf). This is an issue regulated in Art. 4 sec. 1 and Art. 3 of the Entrepreneurs’ Law.

Ad. 2) In this case, however, a restrictive interpretation should be applied, in accordance with the Supreme Court’s case law.[8] The parties’ principal obligations are those directly aimed at fulfilling the obligations arising from the concluded contract. In practice, as the court emphasized, these are usually the price and the subject of the parties’ obligations under such an agreement. The PayPal case does not concern provisions concerning principal obligations, but merely a modification clause. Such a provision does not apply to principal obligations, which is beyond any doubt, as it is not intended to fulfill the obligations directly arising from the contract.

Ad. 3) When analyzing this premise, the justification indicates that the authority must conduct an abstract review of the standard form contract. Therefore, it is irrelevant whether the standard form was individually agreed upon or not, but the fact that it was introduced at all.

Ad. 4) Good practice is a general clause, the interpretation of which requires reference to the moral and ethical rules in force in society at the time of the assessment. In contractual practice, these moral and ethical assessments take on a slightly different meaning. Here, one can speak of a certain commercial integrity and the principles of balance between the parties. It is considered contrary to good practice to exploit a weaker contracting party and shape their obligations in a way that obviously outweighs the obligations of the other contracting party (naturally, the same applies to rights). If such a situation arises, when constructing a given contract, it is safest to structure it so that the rights of one party correspond to the obligations of the other. In the present case, these conditions are not met. A clause granting one party (considered stronger in contracting due to its status as an entrepreneur) the ability to immediately amend the contract by unilateral act is contrary, and even manifestly contrary, to good practice.

Ad. 5) As for the rules of interpretation relating to the consumer, a broad interpretation should be applied, given the purpose of the Consumer Protection Act, which is to protect the collective interests of consumers. The concept of a consumer’s “interests” should be interpreted broadly, not only as an unfavorable development of their economic situation. Aspects such as organizational inconvenience, loss of time, disorganization, misleading, unfair treatment, or violation of the consumer’s privacy should also be taken into account[9]. However, here we are dealing with a contractual imbalance for reasons related to the issues mentioned above in Ad. 4).

In the opinion of Polish Authority, all these conditions were met, therefore the situation justified issuing a decision to recognize this clause as prohibited.

The obvious conclusion from the decisions discussed above is that the company faces challenges in ensuring fairness in consumer transactions. It’s incomprehensible why a business would introduce provisions that should seem suspicious even to someone unfamiliar with consumer protection principles in contracts. Such provisions should be considered wary. Above all, it seems that a good measure to counteract such practices is to raise consumer legal awareness, publicize such practices, and report such actions to the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, even if the entity is financially and organizationally powerful.

[1] (DECISION No. RPZ 2/2025).

[2] See Resolution of the Supreme Court – II NSKP 48/23.

[3] See Judgment of the Court of Appeal in Warsaw – VII AGa 350/20.

[4] Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices (Journal of Laws 2023, item 845).

[5]Act on Combating Unfair Competition (Journal of Laws 2022, item 1233).

[6] See https://uokik.gov.pl – “Prohibited changes to the contract – refunds and compensation from PayPal ” – entry date: 09/07/2025.

[7] https://uokik.gov.pl/Download/1329

[8] Judgment of the Supreme Court of 8 June 2004, file reference number I CK 635/03.

[9] Judgment of the Supreme Court of 8 June 2004, file reference number I CK 635/03.

Artykuł RECENT DECISIONS OF THE PRESIDENT OF THE POLISH OFFICE FOR COMPETITION AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ADDRESSED TOWARDS PAYPAL – MAIN TAKAWAYS FOR ENTERPRISES pochodzi z serwisu KIELTYKA GLADKOWSKI LEGAL | CROSS BORDER POLISH LAW FIRM RANKED IN THE LEGAL 500 EMEA SINCE 2019.