{"id":3886,"date":"2026-08-25T11:12:54","date_gmt":"2026-08-25T11:12:54","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/?p=3886"},"modified":"2026-10-23T11:23:16","modified_gmt":"2026-10-23T11:23:16","slug":"marketing-risk-consumer-law-poland","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/en\/publikacje\/marketing-risk-consumer-law-poland\/","title":{"rendered":"Marketing on the Edge of Risk: When Bold Selling Becomes a Regulatory Problem"},"content":{"rendered":"

Your marketing manager has just launched a campaign with the slogan \u2018the best offer on the market\u2019. An influencer has posted without marking the content as advertising. The checkout has a hidden default upsell. Each of these situations can result in a fine of up to 10% of your company\u2019s turnover, as well as personal liability of up to PLN 2 million for the person who approved the campaign.<\/p>\n

Not because you intended to deceive a customer. Because no one checked where the line is.<\/p>\n

In 2023, UOKiK imposed more than PLN 422 million in fines on businesses for practices infringing the collective interests of consumers. In 2024, the amount was nearly PLN 263 million. Amazon was fined PLN 31.85 million. Azagroup (Renee, Born2Be) was fined nearly PLN 15 million. Olimp Laboratories was fined more than PLN 5 million for covert influencer advertising.<\/p>\n

Aggressive marketing and legal risk now go hand in hand. This article covers five areas where bold selling turns into a regulatory problem, and what you can do so that a campaign launches on time instead of ending in proceedings.<\/p>\n

Key terms to know<\/h2>\n

Before looking at specific risks, let us clarify the terminology. Consumer protection rules use terms that may sound broad but have precise legal meanings.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Term<\/th>\nWhat it means for your business<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Unfair market practice<\/strong><\/td>\nAn act or omission contrary to good commercial practice that distorts a consumer\u2019s purchasing decision. Legal basis: the Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices (UPNPR).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Misleading practice<\/strong><\/td>\nA message that contains false information or omits information needed to make an informed decision, for example, hiding a service fee or stating an inflated \u2018price before reduction\u2019 (Articles 5 and 6 UPNPR).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Aggressive market practice<\/strong><\/td>\nConduct that uses pressure, coercion or manipulation and limits the consumer\u2019s freedom of choice, for example, a hidden cancellation button or a fake countdown timer (Article 8 UPNPR).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Dark patterns (deceptive interfaces)<\/strong><\/td>\nInterface elements deliberately designed to steer users towards a decision that is not in their interest, for example, automatically adding a product to a basket or selecting an upgrade by default. Recital 67 of the DSA defines them as practices that \u2018distort or impair the ability of recipients to make autonomous and informed choices\u2019.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Covert advertising<\/strong><\/td>\nAdvertising presented as a spontaneous opinion, for example, an influencer\u2019s post without an \u2018advertisement\u2019 or \u2018paid partnership\u2019 label.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Greenwashing<\/strong><\/td>\nCommunication suggesting that a product or business is environmentally friendly without factual support, for example, an \u2018eco\u2019 claim without certification or \u2018climate neutrality\u2019 based solely on offsets.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

A UOKiK fine for infringing consumers\u2019 collective interests can reach 10% of the trader\u2019s annual turnover<\/strong>. A manager who allowed an infringement may face a personal fine of up to PLN 2 million<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

Five areas where marketing becomes a legal risk<\/h2>\n

Dark patterns: when UX becomes manipulation<\/h3>\n

Since 2023, UOKiK has treated dark patterns as a separate category of infringements. The first decision in which the President of UOKiK expressly used this term was decision RKT-7\/2023 concerning Natural Pharmaceuticals (5 September 2023). The company was fined PLN 5,196,840<\/strong> and its management board president PLN 110,000<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

The practice involved redirecting customers from an offer of a free supplement sample to a paid annual subscription. The messages looked almost identical, so users could not tell that they were clicking on a different offer. The company also referred to \u2018over a million satisfied customers\u2019 (a figure covering all the company\u2019s customers, not a particular product) and alleged EFSA recommendations.<\/p>\n

Further decisions confirmed this direction:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Business<\/th>\nPractice<\/th>\nFine<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
DUKA International<\/td>\nAutomatically adding products customers did not order to the basket (\u2018sneak into basket\u2019)<\/td>\nPLN 1,578,061<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Bak Drop (bigotka.pl, arkadie.pl)<\/td>\nA fake countdown timer that reset every day, together with hiding the intermediary\u2019s role (dropshipping)<\/td>\nPLN 100,710<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
eBilet<\/td>\nDrip pricing: displaying a lower price and adding a service fee only at the end<\/td>\nmore than PLN 1,300,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Amazon EU SARL<\/td>\nFalse delivery-time information and countdowns suggesting that customers needed to buy quickly<\/td>\nPLN 31,850,141<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The scale of the problem is significant. In the international ICPEN sweep, 642 websites were examined: 75.7% used at least one dark pattern<\/strong>, and 66.8% used two or more. In Poland, UOKiK examined 10 websites and found prohibited practices on half of them.<\/p>\n

Where is the line?<\/strong> Recital 67 of the DSA lists conduct that the regulator considers prohibited:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. Repeatedly asking users to make a choice they have already made<\/li>\n
  2. Making it substantially more burdensome to cancel a service than to select it<\/li>\n
  3. Default settings that are difficult to change<\/li>\n
  4. Presenting options in a non-neutral way, by visually emphasizing one option<\/li>\n
  5. Confusing recipients through deceptive design of the available choices<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    At the same time, Recital 29 of the AI Act states that \u2018common and legitimate commercial practices, for example in advertising, that comply with applicable law should not in themselves be considered harmful manipulative practices\u2019. The line is crossed when an interface deliberately<\/strong> limits a user\u2019s decision-making autonomy.<\/p>\n

    UOKiK is carrying out a project on \u2018Detecting and combating dark patterns using artificial intelligence<\/a>\u2019. The tool analyzes website layouts, visual and textual elements, and source code. Automated e-commerce scans for manipulative patterns are a matter of time, not a distant scenario.<\/p>\n

    What to check in your e-commerce business:<\/strong><\/p>\n

      \n
    1. Is cancelling a subscription as easy as buying it?<\/li>\n
    2. Does the basket contain products the user did not add?<\/li>\n
    3. Do countdown timers reflect a genuine offer deadline?<\/li>\n
    4. Do default settings (such as a selected upgrade or newsletter consent) require the user to take an active step?<\/li>\n
    5. Does the price shown at the beginning of the purchase journey include all mandatory fees?<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

      Price promotions after the Omnibus Directive: the lowest price in the last 30 days<\/h3>\n

      Since 1 January 2023, the implementation of the Omnibus Directive<\/a> has applied. Whenever you announce a price reduction, you must state the lowest price in the last 30 days<\/strong> before the reduction (Article 4(2) of the Price Information Act).<\/p>\n

      It sounds simple, but businesses make mistakes on a large scale. The Trade Inspection checked nearly 3,000 businesses; almost half had irregularities<\/strong>. It imposed 899 fines totalling more than PLN 1.2 million.<\/p>\n

      Typical mistakes include:<\/p>\n

        \n
      1. Failing to show the lowest price in the 30 days before a promotion<\/li>\n
      2. Using the wrong reference price, such as a \u2018regular\u2019 price instead of the actual lowest price in the last 30 days<\/li>\n
      3. Presenting the reference price unclearly, in small print or in a way that is not visible on a mobile device<\/li>\n
      4. \u2018Never-ending promotions\u2019: communicating a permanent reduction as an exceptional, time-limited offer<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

        The last mistake cost Azagroup (Renee and Born2Be stores) PLN 14,910,599<\/strong>. The decision of 27 May 2025 concerned permanent promotions with countdown clocks that restarted as soon as they ended. Products might never have been offered at the prices used to calculate the discount. For context, 82% of respondents in a UOKiK survey said promotions influenced their choice of online store.<\/p>\n

        The CJEU judgment in Aldi S\u00fcd (2024) confirmed that a percentage reduction must be calculated from the lowest price in the last 30 days, not from a \u2018regular\u2019 or \u2018recommended\u2019 price.<\/p>\n

        Zalando and Temu received fines totalling nearly PLN 37 million (Zalando accounted for almost PLN 31 million) for infringements related to price and promotion presentation<\/a>.<\/p>\n

        Checklist for your team:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        Item to check<\/th>\nStatus<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
        The lowest price in the last 30 days is visible for every reduction<\/td>\n\u2610<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        The reference price is the actual lowest price, not a \u2018recommended\u2019 price<\/td>\n\u2610<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        The percentage reduction is calculated from the lowest price in the last 30 days (CJEU judgment in Aldi S\u00fcd)<\/td>\n\u2610<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Countdown timers reflect the actual end of the promotion<\/td>\n\u2610<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        The promotion terms are consistent with the advertising claims<\/td>\n\u2610<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        The presentation is legible on mobile devices<\/td>\n\u2610<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        Contact us<\/a> if you would like us to review your promotion terms and purchase journeys for Omnibus compliance before the Trade Inspection does.<\/p>\n

        Influencer marketing: the brand is responsible, not just the creator<\/h3>\n

        Since 2022, UOKiK has actively enforced the requirement to label advertising content on social media. UOKiK\u2019s recommendations (prepared with IAB Poland in September 2022) are not legally binding, but they indicate how the regulator interprets the rules.<\/p>\n

        Required labels include \u2018advertisement\u2019, \u2018sponsored content\u2019 or \u2018paid partnership\u2019, together with identification of the advertised brand. The label must be visible from the beginning, use a clear font, and be in the language of the profile.<\/p>\n

        The Olimp Laboratories case (August 2023) was a precedent that changed the rules of the game. The company paid influencers to feature its products on Instagram under supplied guidelines. Those guidelines provided for unclear labels that did not unambiguously identify the commercial nature of the content.<\/p>\n

        Fines:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
        Party<\/th>\nFine<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
        Olimp Laboratories (brand)<\/td>\nmore than PLN 5,000,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Piotr Lisek (influencer)<\/td>\nmore than PLN 23,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Katarzyna Dziurska (influencer)<\/td>\nPLN 16,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
        Katarzyna Ole\u015bkiewicz-Szuba (influencer)<\/td>\nPLN 5,000<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

        The Court of Competition and Consumer Protection (SOKiK) dismissed Olimp Laboratories\u2019 appeal in 2025 and confirmed that an advertiser is responsible for content commissioned from influencers<\/strong>. A producer cannot avoid liability by shifting it to the creator, particularly when the brand supplied publication guidelines.<\/p>\n

        In 2025, UOKiK fined companies associated with Filip Chajzer, Dorota Rabczewska and Ma\u0142gorzata Rozenek-Majdan a total of nearly half a million zlotys.<\/p>\n

        What to implement in your business:<\/strong><\/p>\n

          \n
        1. Update influencer agreements with clauses on responsibility for correct content labelling<\/li>\n
        2. Create publication briefs with labelling rules and concrete examples: \u2018this format is OK\u2019 and \u2018this one needs correction\u2019<\/li>\n
        3. Set up a content approval procedure<\/a> before publication<\/li>\n
        4. Remember gifts: for the first gift, disclose that it is a gift; later gifts from the same brand should be labelled as advertising content<\/li>\n
        5. Affiliate links always require an advertising label<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

          Greenwashing: environmental claims under regulatory scrutiny<\/h3>\n

          Do you describe your business as \u2018eco-friendly\u2019, \u2018sustainable\u2019 or \u2018climate-neutral\u2019? Check that you can substantiate those claims.<\/p>\n

          The Green Claims Directive (GCD), planned as a separate legal act, has not been adopted<\/strong>. In June 2025, the European Commission announced its intention to withdraw the legislative proposal because of concerns about excessive burdens on micro-enterprises.<\/p>\n

          That does not mean greenwashing is safe. Directive 2024\/825\/EU (ECGT)<\/strong> is in force. It was adopted on 28 February 2024, must be transposed by 27 March 2026<\/strong>, and is to apply from 27 September 2026<\/strong>. It expands the blacklist of prohibited practices to include:<\/p>\n

            \n
          1. Generic environmental claims without evidence, such as \u2018eco\u2019, \u2018green\u2019 or \u2018environmentally friendly\u2019<\/li>\n
          2. Climate-neutrality claims based solely on emissions compensation (offsets)<\/li>\n
          3. Private \u2018eco-labels\u2019 without a certification system<\/li>\n
          4. Presenting an environmentally friendly feature of part of a product as a feature of the whole product<\/li>\n
          5. Claims about future environmental performance without a detailed plan with measurable milestones<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

            In Poland, work is under way on draft bill UC111, which would amend the UPNPR and the Consumer Rights Act to implement Directive 2024\/825.<\/p>\n

            UOKiK is already conducting proceedings against businesses over general environmental claims, including Bolt, Tchibo and Zara. The stated legal bases are Articles 5 and 6 UPNPR (misleading practices) and Article 24 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection.<\/p>\n

            How to organize ESG communications:<\/strong><\/p>\n

              \n
            1. Review all marketing materials for environmental claims<\/li>\n
            2. Give every claim (\u2018eco\u2019, \u2018sustainable\u2019, \u2018climate-neutral\u2019) a specific factual basis<\/li>\n
            3. Remove or clarify generic statements. Instead of \u2018we are eco-friendly\u2019, say what you do and what data supports it<\/li>\n
            4. If you communicate future goals, prepare a plan with measurable milestones<\/li>\n
            5. Do not base climate-neutrality claims solely on offsets<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

              Strong advertising claims: \u2018best\u2019, \u2018cheapest\u2019 and \u2018guaranteed results\u2019<\/h3>\n

              \u2018The best offer on the market\u2019 sounds good in a creative brief. It sounds less convincing in the reasoning of a UOKiK decision.<\/p>\n

              Misleading advertising is the most common basis for UOKiK proceedings in consumer protection. Jeronimo Martins Polska (the \u2018anti-inflation Biedronka Shield\u2019 promotion) paid PLN 160,923,767<\/strong>, the highest fine for infringing collective consumer interests in 2023. The allegation concerned misleading consumers about the promotion\u2019s terms, benefits and availability of its rules.<\/p>\n

              Every marketing claim is assessed against the \u2018average consumer\u2019 model: a person who is reasonably well-informed, observant and circumspect (Supreme Court judgment of 2 October 2007, II CSK 289\/07). If an average consumer could understand your message as a promise of a specific result, and you cannot prove that result, you have a problem.<\/p>\n

              Decision rule for the marketing team:<\/strong><\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
              Type of message<\/th>\nDoes it require evidence?<\/th>\nExample<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
              Absolute superlative (\u2018best\u2019, \u2018cheapest\u2019)<\/td>\nYes, you must prove it is true<\/td>\n\u2018The cheapest hosting in Poland\u2019 requires a comparison with every competitor<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Subjective superlative or puffery (\u2018a beloved brand\u2019)<\/td>\nNo, if it is an obvious exaggeration<\/td>\n\u2018Coffee you\u2019ll love\u2019 is permissible<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Claim about a specific result (\u201830% growth guaranteed\u2019)<\/td>\nYes, you need data<\/td>\nResearch, tests, statistics<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Comparative advertising (\u201830% cheaper than X\u2019)<\/td>\nYes, the comparison methodology must be verifiable<\/td>\nWithout verification, a competitor may sue under the Act on Combating Unfair Competition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

              Who is responsible for a non-compliant campaign: the brand or the agency?<\/h2>\n

              This question comes up in every UOKiK proceeding. The answer is: both<\/strong>.<\/p>\n

              The Act on Combating Unfair Competition (Articles 16 and 17) provides for cumulative liability of the advertiser and advertising agency. In its judgment of 9 April 2015 (II CSK 338\/14), the Supreme Court confirmed that an advertiser cannot avoid liability by saying that an agency prepared the campaign (Article 429 of the Civil Code).<\/p>\n

              In a UOKiK decision concerning the \u2018iPlus dla Ciebie z komputerem za z\u0142ot\u00f3wk\u0119\u2019 campaign (Vobis S.A.), the advertiser was fined PLN 177,034<\/strong>, even though an external party had prepared the creative.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
              Party<\/th>\nWhat it is responsible for<\/th>\nLegal basis<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
              Brand (advertiser)<\/td>\nThe content and presentation of the advertisement, even if it commissioned an agency<\/td>\nArticles 16-17 of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition; Supreme Court judgment II CSK 338\/14<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Advertising agency<\/td>\nPreparing an advertisement that violates the law<\/td>\nArticles 16-17 of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              Manager approving the campaign<\/td>\nPersonal liability for intentionally allowing an infringement<\/td>\nArticle 106b of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection: up to PLN 2 million<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

              The takeaway: an agency agreement does not protect you from a UOKiK fine. An internal campaign approval procedure with clear assignment of responsibility does.<\/p>\n

              Layered financial risk: cumulative penalty regimes<\/h2>\n

              A business using aggressive digital marketing may breach rules under several regimes at once. Penalties may accumulate.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
              Regulatory regime<\/th>\nMaximum penalty<\/th>\nExample of an infringement<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
              Consumer protection (UOKiK)<\/td>\nUp to 10% of annual turnover<\/td>\nDark patterns, false promotions, covert advertising<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              GDPR<\/td>\nUp to 4% of annual turnover or EUR 20 million<\/td>\nProfiling without a legal basis<\/a>, failure to provide the right to object to direct marketing<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              DSA (for platforms)<\/td>\nUp to 6% of annual turnover<\/td>\nDeceptive interfaces on a platform<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
              AI Act<\/td>\nUp to 7% of turnover or EUR 35 million<\/td>\nAI-based manipulative techniques that limit decision-making autonomy<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

              Recital 70 of the GDPR states that a data subject has the right to object at any time, free of charge, to the processing of personal data for direct marketing, including profiling. This right must be presented \u2018clearly and separately from any other information\u2019. If your newsletter cancellation form requires three clicks and a login, it is not \u2018clear and separate\u2019.<\/p>\n