Can a Business Partner Require Your Platform to Remove Negative Reviews in Poland?
A commercial partner asks for a “small concession”: the right to have one negative review removed each quarter. The sales team sees a compromise. The legal team sees a potential blacklisted unfair market practice-one that Poland’s consumer protection authority can pursue without proving that a particular consumer suffered harm.
If you operate a marketplace, booking portal, or service aggregator that displays user reviews in Poland, this request may arise in partner negotiations. What appears to be a limited contractual concession can expose the platform to enforcement by the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) and create problems under the EU Digital Services Act (DSA).
The practical answer is not to deny partners any way to challenge a review. It is to give them a reporting process while keeping moderation decisions tied to published, neutral criteria-not to a contractual right to remove unfavorable opinions.
The Rules and Institutions at a Glance
| Term | What it means for a platform operating in Poland |
|---|---|
| Omnibus Directive | EU Directive 2019/2161 strengthened consumer protection in online commerce. Poland implemented it from January 1, 2023, through amendments to its Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices (ustawa o przeciwdziałaniu nieuczciwym praktykom rynkowym, or u.p.n.p.r.). |
| Blacklist of prohibited practices | An exhaustive list of practices treated as unfair in all circumstances under Article 7 of the u.p.n.p.r. The authority does not need to establish harm to a specific consumer. |
| Digital Services Act | EU Regulation 2022/2065, fully applicable since February 17, 2024. It sets rules for online platforms, including content moderation and transparency of terms and conditions. |
| Notice-and-action | The DSA mechanism for reporting content considered illegal (Article 16). A partner identifies a review and explains the concern; the platform assesses the report and makes a reasoned decision. |
| Content moderation | Action concerning user content-including removal, reduced visibility, or suspension-whether carried out manually or automatically (Article 3(t) DSA). |
| UOKiK | Poland’s Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. Its president can impose administrative penalties for infringements of collective consumer interests. |
| Digital Services Coordinator | The national authority responsible for supervising application of the DSA. In Poland, the President of the Office of Electronic Communications (UKE) performs this role temporarily under a Council of Ministers resolution of May 13, 2025. |
Why a Partner’s Review-Removal Right Creates Legal Risk
The blacklist has no “one review per quarter” exception
Article 7(23b) of the u.p.n.p.r. prohibits distorting consumer reviews to promote products. Selectively removing negative reviews at a seller’s request falls within that prohibition.
A numerical cap does not change the selection criterion. If the partner may choose one negative review each quarter for removal while positive reviews remain, the platform is still selecting reviews by sentiment. The provision contains no de minimis threshold. Recital 49 of Directive 2019/2161 expressly identifies publishing only positive reviews and deleting negative ones as prohibited conduct.
Article 7(23a) of the u.p.n.p.r. also prohibits claiming that reviews come from actual users without taking “reasonable steps” to verify them. A platform that tells consumers, “We verify that reviews come from actual customers,” while giving a partner a contractual mechanism to remove reviews makes that consumer-facing statement untrue.
UOKiK has already penalized review manipulation
UOKiK has issued at least five decisions concerning the sale of fake reviews or manipulation of reviews:
| Decision | Date | Penalty |
|---|---|---|
| RPZ-1/2023 | January 31, 2023 | PLN 40,000 |
| RKR-3/2023 | January 31, 2023 | PLN 30,000 |
| RPZ-6/2024 | June 20, 2024 | PLN 50,618 |
| RPZ-8/2024 | July 4, 2024 | PLN 35,000 |
| Reference number not given | Before September 23, 2026 | PLN 40,000 |
These decisions concerned businesses trading in fake reviews, not marketplace platforms. They should not be presented as decisions against platforms for granting a partner a removal right. The risk for a platform is that removing negative reviews on request may be classified as distorting reviews to promote a product. Article 7(23a) also addresses “commissioning” the practice.
For an infringement of collective consumer interests, the maximum penalty is 10% of turnover in the preceding year under Article 106(1)(4) of Poland’s Act on Competition and Consumer Protection (ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów, or u.o.k.k.).
A private partner agreement cannot replace published DSA moderation rules
There is a distinction between removing a review under predetermined, objective moderation criteria and removing it simply because a partner wants it gone. The first is lawful moderation; the second creates the risk described above.
Article 14 DSA requires terms and conditions to explain content restrictions and moderation rules clearly. Grounds for removing reviews must be published, rather than hidden in an individually negotiated B2B agreement.
Article 17 DSA requires the platform to give the content’s author reasons for a moderation decision. A partner’s private request is difficult to reconcile with a reasoned explanation to the reviewer. Article 20 DSA gives the reviewer access to an internal complaint-handling process; a removal without a basis in the published rules will fail that challenge.
Recital 67 DSA also addresses practices that distort or impair users’ ability to make independent, informed choices. Selectively removing unfavorable reviews at a partner’s request has the functional effect of a dark pattern, even though the mechanism is a contract clause rather than an interface design choice.
What the Clause Puts at Risk
| Risk | Practical consequence | Severity |
|---|---|---|
| UOKiK enforcement | A blacklisted practice does not require proof of harm to an individual consumer; a penalty for infringing collective consumer interests can reach 10% of turnover. | High |
| Conflict with review-verification statements | A consumer-facing account of how reviews are verified becomes inaccurate if a partner can quietly require removals. | High |
| Reviewer complaints | The platform cannot justify a removal by reference to its published rules if the real ground exists only in a partner contract. | Medium |
| Inconsistent documentation | Different negotiated rights across partner agreements make it difficult to maintain one coherent review policy. | Medium |
| Legacy “zombie clauses” | An old removal clause may remain in force long after the public review policy has changed. These clauses are easily missed in an audit. | Medium |
The DSA assigns marketplaces responsibilities across the information consumers receive: verifying traders under Article 30, addressing interface design under Article 31, and providing information about illegal products under Article 32. A partner-controlled removal clause conflicts with that role by degrading the information available to consumers.
This is more than a reputational issue. It combines potential administrative enforcement under Polish consumer rules with a broader DSA moderation and transparency problem.
What to Offer a Partner Instead
If a partner threatens to leave negotiations unless it gains control over reviews, propose a notice-and-action procedure. The partner gets a route to flag a specific problem; the platform retains responsibility for assessing it under its published criteria.
- The partner identifies a particular review through an easily accessible electronic reporting mechanism, as required by Article 16 DSA.
- The report identifies the content and explains the concern. For example, the partner may say that the reviewer never completed a booking, that the review contains false information, or that it infringes another person’s rights.
- The platform assesses the report against published grounds, not against the partner’s preference or a removal quota.
- The platform makes a reasoned decision without undue delay, documenting its factual and legal basis.
- The platform informs the review’s author of the decision and its reasons under Article 17 DSA.
- The author can challenge the decision through the internal complaint-handling system under Article 20 DSA.
Consider a hotel chain that reports a review from someone who, according to the platform’s records, never made a booking. Instead of invoking a contractual removal right, the chain submits the review through the reporting process. The platform checks its system, confirms there was no booking, removes the review under its published criterion, explains that it did not come from someone who used the service, and notifies the author.
The partner obtains the operational outcome it wanted, but the decision rests on a documented moderation ground rather than the partner’s demand.
Build a Review Policy That Matches Actual Practice
A closed list of neutral removal grounds helps distinguish legitimate moderation from selective suppression. “Negative sentiment” and “partner request” should not be grounds. Leaving them out also gives the platform a documented basis for refusing an improper request.
A review policy should cover:
- Authenticity verification. Tell consumers whether and how the platform checks that reviews come from people who used the service, as required under Poland’s implementation of the Omnibus Directive.
- An exhaustive list of sentiment-neutral removal grounds. Depending on the platform’s service, the list may address:
- a booking or order that was never completed;
- information the platform has verified as false;
- illegal content, such as threats or hate speech;
- offensive content or infringement of third-party rights;
- spam or duplicates;
- content unrelated to the product or service;
- personal data included without a legal basis; and
- automatically generated or fake content.
- The moderation process. Explain who decides, on what basis, and within what timeframe.
- The complaint mechanism. Explain how a reviewer can challenge a removal under Article 20 DSA.
- Reporting instructions. Explain how users and businesses can submit reviews for assessment under Article 16 DSA.
The review policy is public-facing. A B2B agreement cannot credibly promise a different, private moderation practice. The published rules and actual decisions must align.
Audit the Contracts and the Process
| Priority | Action |
|---|---|
| Urgent | Review current partner contracts for rights to demand that reviews be removed, hidden, or changed. Remove such provisions at the next renegotiation. |
| Urgent | Add an exhaustive, objective list of removal grounds to the review policy. |
| Urgent | Implement or improve an electronic notice-and-action process for partner reports. |
| Urgent | Publish a clear explanation of review-authenticity checks, and confirm that it matches what the platform does. |
| Urgent | Put an internal complaint-handling system in place for moderation decisions under Article 20 DSA. |
| Recommended | Keep general terms and conditions consistent; put any individually negotiated deviations only in the relevant partner’s specific agreement. Do not use that approach to create a private exception to the review policy. |
| Recommended | Train the sales team on the limits of review-related negotiations so a removal right is not offered again as a concession. |
Article 30 DSA gave platforms until February 2025 to adapt relationships with existing partners. Legacy review-removal clauses should have been identified during that work. If they were not, audit them now.
A platform also has tools for dealing with a partner who fails to meet information requirements. Article 30(3) DSA allows it to suspend service to a partner who does not provide required information. That is not a reason to concede control over reviews to secure the relationship.
What if a review feels unfair but is not false?
Generally, the platform should not remove a subjectively negative review if it contains no false factual information, is not illegal, and meets none of the published removal grounds. Doing so exposes the platform to an allegation that it has distorted the review picture.
It can instead:
- allow the partner to post a public response visible to other users;
- label the review “verified” or “unverified,” according to whether the author used the service; or
- remove it under a published criterion-such as an uncompleted booking-after checking the relevant records.
The distinction is the reason for the decision: a neutral, published criterion rather than the partner’s dislike of the review.
How We Can Help
An old clause in one partner agreement can survive long after a platform updates its review policy. For marketplaces, booking portals, and service aggregators, an effective audit covers three connected areas:
- Partner contracts, including older agreements that may not have been updated when the policy changed.
- The public review policy, including verification disclosures, removal grounds, moderation steps, and complaints.
- The notice-and-action process, so partners can report concerns and the platform’s team can assess and document decisions consistently.
We combine experience in e-commerce law, contract law, and digital law. If you want to assess your partner agreements and review policy against the DSA and Poland’s Omnibus rules, contact us.
Key Takeaway
A contractual right to demand removal of negative reviews is not made safe by limiting it to one review per quarter-or even one per year. Under the Polish rules discussed above, it creates a risk of a blacklisted unfair practice, while the DSA requires moderation to follow transparent rules and reasoned procedures. A new agreement containing such a clause creates risk from the time it is signed.
Give partners a way to report problematic reviews, not a right to decide which reviews disappear. Then audit existing contracts, align the public policy with actual practice, and train the team that negotiates partner terms.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a partner be allowed to remove just one review a year?
No numerical exception appears in Article 7(23b) of the u.p.n.p.r. If even one negative review is selected for removal because the partner requests it, the limit does not address the underlying distortion risk. UOKiK need not prove harm to a particular consumer to pursue a blacklisted practice.
What if the partner says it will walk away?
Offer a notice-and-action route: the partner identifies a review, gives reasons, and receives a decision based on published criteria. A removal clause creates risk for both sides-the platform faces potential UOKiK enforcement, while the partner may lose access to the platform if the infringement comes to light.
Who is responsible if the removal clause is signed?
The platform publishes and presents the reviews to consumers, so it remains responsible for its own consumer-facing conduct and DSA obligations even when acting at a partner’s request. The partner may also face responsibility for “commissioning” an unfair practice under Article 7(23a) of the u.p.n.p.r.; that possibility does not release the platform from its obligations.
Must the reviewer receive reasons if the review really breached the policy?
Yes. Under Article 17 DSA, the platform must explain a moderation decision to the author, including its factual and legal grounds. Article 20 DSA provides for an internal complaint-handling system. An actual policy breach does not dispense with those procedural obligations.
What should the reporting form do?
It should provide an easily accessible electronic way to identify the specific review and explain the report-for example, that no booking was completed or that the review contains false information about a stay. The platform should acknowledge the report, assess it against published grounds, decide without undue delay, and inform the partner and reviewer of the outcome. Reports from trusted flaggers under Article 22 DSA must receive priority.
Can the platform remove a review that is unfair but factually accurate?
Generally not if it meets none of the published moderation grounds. The partner can respond publicly, and the platform can apply an accurate verified or unverified label. If records establish a separate removal ground, such as a booking that never occurred, the platform can act on that verified ground-not on the review’s negative tone.