{"id":2812,"date":"2026-10-16T12:25:11","date_gmt":"2026-10-16T12:25:11","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/?p=2812"},"modified":"2026-10-16T12:25:32","modified_gmt":"2026-10-16T12:25:32","slug":"selling-online-courses-live-mentoring-poland-withdrawal","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/sawaryn.com\/us\/selling-online-courses-live-mentoring-poland-withdrawal\/","title":{"rendered":"Selling Online Courses with Live Mentoring in Poland: When Can a Customer Withdraw?"},"content":{"rendered":"

Selling Online Courses with Live Mentoring in Poland: When Can a Customer Withdraw?<\/h1>\n

A customer buys your online course, watches the recordings and attends live mentoring sessions. Two years later, they ask for a full refund. Your records show that they used the product\u2014but that may not answer the legal question that matters.<\/p>\n

Under Poland\u2019s Consumer Rights Act, use of digital content does not, by itself, end a consumer\u2019s right to withdraw from a contract. For paid digital content supplied without a physical medium, the exception to that right depends on steps the seller takes during the sale. One frequently missed step is sending a contract confirmation that the consumer can keep in an unchanged form. You cannot recreate a confirmation as if it had been sent at the time of purchase.<\/p>\n

For businesses selling into Poland, there is a second question: is a course with recordings and<\/em> live mentoring digital content, a service provided over time, or a mixed package? The answer affects whether the digital-content exception applies at all.<\/p>\n

The Polish terms you need to know<\/h2>\n

Right of withdrawal.<\/strong> Under the Polish Consumer Rights Act, a consumer generally has 14 days to withdraw from a distance contract, such as an online purchase, without giving a reason. The seller must then refund the price, subject to the rules discussed below.<\/p>\n

Digital content not supplied on a tangible medium<\/a>.<\/strong> Data produced and supplied digitally\u2014for example, video recordings, e-books or audio files\u2014rather than on a disc or USB drive.<\/p>\n

Durable medium.<\/strong> A means of storing information addressed personally to the consumer so they can access it for an appropriate period and reproduce it unchanged. An email with a PDF attachment generally qualifies. An ordinary website or pop-up generally does not.<\/p>\n

Mixed package.<\/strong> An offer combining digital content, such as recordings, with activities delivered over time, such as mentoring, live sessions or workshops. Its legal classification affects when\u2014and whether\u2014the right of withdrawal ends.<\/p>\n

Article 38(13) of the Consumer Rights Act.<\/strong> The Polish provision excluding the right of withdrawal for paid digital content not supplied on a tangible medium, but only when the source\u2019s four conditions are met together.<\/p>\n

The four steps for the digital-content exception<\/h2>\n

Article 38(13) of the Polish Consumer Rights Act, in the wording effective from January 1, 2023 (consolidated text, Journal of Laws 2024, item 1796<\/a>), addresses paid digital content not supplied on a tangible medium. The approved source identifies four cumulative requirements<\/strong>:<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Requirement<\/th>\nWhat the seller needs to do<\/th>\nWhen<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
1. Obtain the consumer\u2019s express prior consent<\/strong><\/td>\nObtain consent to begin supplying the content before the withdrawal period ends, using a separate checkbox that is not preselected.<\/td>\nBefore supply begins<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
2. Obtain acknowledgment of the loss of the right<\/strong><\/td>\nHave the consumer separately confirm that they understand they will lose the right of withdrawal.<\/td>\nBefore supply begins<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
3. Give pre-contract information<\/strong><\/td>\nExplain the right of withdrawal and the conditions for losing it, in accordance with Article 12 of the Act.<\/td>\nBefore the contract is concluded<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
4. Confirm the contract on a durable medium<\/strong><\/td>\nSend confirmation that includes information about the consent given and the loss of the right of withdrawal.<\/td>\nWhen the contract is concluded or immediately afterward<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

These are steps for the seller to complete and document.<\/strong> Login records, an IP address, acceptance of an on-screen notice and activity in the app do not replace them. A customer\u2019s viewing history answers a different question.<\/p>\n

Why the confirmation is often missed<\/h3>\n

A checkout can be configured to collect consent, acknowledgment and other pre-contract information on screen. But the fourth step calls for a contract confirmation provided on a durable medium<\/strong>, including the consent and withdrawal information. The source connects this requirement with Article 15(1) and (2) or Article 21(1) of the Act (amendment of December 1, 2022<\/a>).<\/p>\n

If that confirmation was not sent when the contract was made, sending a document only after a claim arrives two years later does not make it a timely confirmation. Meeting the other three requirements does not cure the missing fourth step.<\/p>\n

What counts as a durable-medium confirmation?<\/h2>\n

The format matters, but the contents matter too<\/strong>. An email can be retained without being an adequate contract confirmation<\/em> if it omits the required information.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Document or channel<\/th>\nAssessment in the source<\/th>\nReason<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
Email from the seller with a PDF attachment<\/strong><\/td>\nGenerally suitable<\/td>\nThe consumer can store, access and reproduce the information unchanged. The confirmation must still contain the required details.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Payment-provider receipt, such as from Stripe or PayU<\/strong><\/td>\nNot an adequate seller confirmation<\/td>\nIt comes from another entity and does not contain the required information.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Invoice<\/strong><\/td>\nNot sufficient on its own<\/td>\nIt lacks the required withdrawal notice and information about consent and loss of the right.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Payment thank-you page<\/strong><\/td>\nGenerally not suitable<\/td>\nThe seller can change the page, and the consumer does not control its storage.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Platform pop-up<\/strong><\/td>\nGenerally not suitable<\/td>\nIt disappears when closed and can be changed by the seller. In Case C-49\/11, Content Services<\/em>, the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) addressed a website whose contents could be changed by the trader (CJEU judgment<\/a>).<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
Message in a customer account<\/strong><\/td>\nPotentially suitable, subject to conditions<\/td>\nIt must meet the criteria discussed in CJEU Case C-375\/15, BAWAG<\/em>: an individually addressed, unchanged message available for the required period.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

The definition of a durable medium appears in Article 2(10) of Directive 2011\/83\/EU<\/a> and is implemented in Article 2(4) of the Polish Consumer Rights Act. In BAWAG<\/em> (January 25, 2017), the CJEU clarified the conditions under which a customer-account message may qualify.<\/p>\n

The source\u2019s practical recommendation is an automated post-purchase email from the seller<\/strong> stating the product name, price and date, reproducing the consent to begin supply, and giving notice of the loss of the right of withdrawal. In a mixed offer, it should also describe what the customer bought.<\/p>\n

Is a course with live mentoring digital content or a service?<\/h2>\n

Even a checkout that meets all four digital-content requirements may not resolve the withdrawal position for the whole offer. Article 38(13) concerns digital content not supplied on a tangible medium<\/strong>. Live meetings, mentoring, workshops and group sessions may instead be classified as a service provided over time<\/strong>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n\n\n\n\n
Question<\/th>\nDigital content<\/th>\nService provided over time<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n
When does the relevant exception end the withdrawal right?<\/strong><\/td>\nWhen the four Article 38(13) conditions are met and supply begins.<\/td>\nUnder the distinction set out in the source, only after the service has been fully performed.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
What does this mean for a multi-month program?<\/strong><\/td>\nThe exception may apply at the start of supply if its conditions are satisfied.<\/td>\nThe relevant point may be the end of the program, not the first login.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n
What is the risk in a combined offer?<\/strong><\/td>\nThe digital-content steps may not cover its live elements.<\/td>\nA consumer may seek to withdraw while the program is running.<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n

Directive 2019\/770<\/a> covers digital content supplied once or continuously. The source also points to Directive 2019\/2161<\/a> as indicating that continuous involvement by the supplier supports classification as a service.<\/p>\n

The risk of one package at one price<\/h3>\n

Suppose the customer pays one undivided price for recordings, live sessions, mentoring, app access and a software license. If the contract does not allocate the price among those elements, the consumer may demand a refund of the full amount<\/strong> on withdrawal.<\/p>\n

Article 35(1) of the Consumer Rights Act permits a proportionate settlement: the consumer pays an amount corresponding to what was provided before withdrawal. Article 36, however, provides that the consumer does not bear costs where the seller failed to meet the relevant information obligations or obtain the required consent (consolidated text of the Act<\/a>).<\/p>\n

A price allocation invented after<\/em> the purchase for a dispute is not a contractual allocation. Nor does listing separate prices automatically let you retain the recordings fee: the recordings must genuinely be a separate deliverable, and the statutory digital-content conditions must be met.<\/p>\n

Two claims that show why the sales record matters<\/h2>\n

The source describes two matters with different legal grounds and different outcomes. They illustrate why evidence of product use is not a substitute for evidence of the sales process.<\/p>\n

Claim one: \u201cBut the customer logged in\u201d<\/h3>\n

A company sold one online package for one price: recorded lessons, live sessions, mentoring, app access and a software license. Its terms, written years earlier, described only the supply of digital content. The offer had changed; the terms had not.<\/p>\n

Two years after purchase, a participant requested a refund. The company focused on login records, an accepted notice, an IP address and app activity. The consumer did not deny entering the platform. Their point was that logging in did not establish that the seller had met the conditions for ending the right of withdrawal.<\/p>\n

The review found that:<\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The payment thank-you page omitted the product name\u2014showing empty quotation marks in its place\u2014as well as the price and consent information.<\/li>\n
  2. The payment provider\u2019s receipt was not the seller\u2019s contract confirmation.<\/li>\n
  3. The company had not sent a durable-medium confirmation covering the consent and loss of the right of withdrawal.<\/li>\n
  4. Its log showed only the first and last use of the app, not a meaningful record of activity.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The right of withdrawal had most likely not expired<\/strong>. The company\u2019s technical records did not address the central defect.<\/p>\n

    Claim two: a demand after three years<\/h3>\n

    Another consumer bought a workshop place after a webinar, using a payment link sent by email. They attended in person and raised no objections for three years. Their later demand was not<\/strong> based on withdrawal. It alleged improper performance of the contract and unfair commercial practices.<\/p>\n

    Here, the terms covered only purchases through the website, while this contract had been concluded through a different route.<\/p>\n

    The responses differed. In the first matter, a refund was proposed as less burdensome than the risk of losing the dispute. In the second, the claim was challenged in full, with moderate litigation risk. The difference turned on the basis of each claim and the evidence available\u2014not simply on how long the customer had waited.<\/p>\n

    The broader lessons are operational:<\/p>\n