Poland is on the verge of implementing the second Consumer Credit Directive. We are talking about Directive 2023/2225 of October 18, 2023, on consumer credit (CCD II). The draft implementing act was published in July 2025. Since then, there has been public discussion of the provisions of the proposed act. One of the most widely commented instruments is the sanction of free credit, or in some cases “donated” credit.

Already today, the current Consumer Credit Act regulates the right of lenders to submit a so-called declaration of use of the free credit sanction and to refuse to pay interest and commissions on the credit granted.

The number of court cases brought by borrowers is growing at a double-digit rate, and law firms specializing in pursuing claims under the SKD are intensifying their activities. According to data from the lending sector, the number of court cases concerning SKD at the end of the third quarter of 2025 exceeded 19,000, which is another sign of growing regulatory and procedural pressure on lenders.

The proposed consumer credit bill, implementing the CCD2 Directive, radically restructures the sanctions system. It replaces the existing uniform SKD formula with a three-tier model aimed at increasing proportionality and eliminating abuse on both sides of the process.

The CCD2 Directive imposes a general obligation on Member States to establish sanctions for infringements of national consumer credit legislation. These must be “effective, proportionate, and dissuasive,” but CCD2 does not specify a detailed model for sanctions. This means that national legislators may vary their scope, provided that they ensure effective consumer protection, but they cannot limit themselves to imposing administrative penalties. Sanctions must also be applied in consumer-lender relations.

The rules adopted in the Polish draft law significantly change the paradigm of the current free credit sanction.

Three variants of sanctions in the draft law

In the event of a violation of the regulations by the lender, the draft bill provides for three types of sanctions – from the most severe (gifted credit), through the classic free credit sanction, to a partial sanction.

The most far-reaching effect is provided for by the donated credit sanction, i.e., a situation in which the consumer does not repay the principal, interest, or costs. This applies to the most serious violations related to granting credit without an explicit request from the consumer or applying the presumption of the consumer’s consent to conclude the agreement. This is a completely new, most severe form of sanction provided for in the draft consumer credit law.

Another type of sanction is the free credit sanction, which has been more precisely regulated and applies, among other things, in the event of failure to assess creditworthiness or doing so in a manner contrary to the consumer’s interests, exceeding the maximum non-interest costs, or the absence of required elements of the agreement (APR, repayment rules, right of withdrawal, etc.). In light of market data, it is precisely these violations that currently form the basis of most consumer lawsuits against lenders.

The legislator is also introducing a partial free credit sanction, whereby the customer, after submitting a statement, repays only the principal and half of the interest. This solution is inspired by the principle of proportionality and the latest case law of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).

The CJEU judgment of February 13, 2025 (C-472/23), in which the Court stated that the national court should examine whether the infringements of the provisions of the Act had a real impact on the consumer’s decision, indicating that the sanction cannot be disproportionate to the infringement. This thesis of the judgment departs from the previous extremely formalistic interpretation, according to which almost every violation of the content of a consumer credit agreement, regardless of its nature, resulted in the classic sanction of free credit. At the same time, it strengthens the arguments of lenders regarding abuse of law and the need to balance the interests of the parties.

From the lenders’ point of view, the sanctions proposed in the bill represent a significant burden in three areas: financial, regulatory, and reputational.

In particular, the sanction in the “free credit” model leads, from a financial perspective, to a total or partial loss of interest, costs, and commissions, and thus to the unpredictability of portfolio profitability. The need to tighten scoring policies and limit exposure to short-term and high-cost loans is also significant.

From a regulatory risk perspective, the sanction results in interpretative uncertainty regarding proportionality, the risk of mass complaints and lawsuits, and rising legal costs.
Publicity surrounding disputes, pressure from regulators and consumer organizations, and negative media coverage contribute to a loss of consumer confidence and damage to the brand image. They also indirectly contribute to difficulties in obtaining financing for lending activities.

One of the most controversial elements of the proposed regulation is the fact that the free credit sanction—in all three variants—is not linked at all to the degree of due diligence on the part of the lender or to an assessment of the real impact of the violation on the consumer’s situation and decision. This is a structural assumption that the draft replicates from the current concept of free credit sanctions, despite the CJEU’s clear indications regarding the need to weigh the proportionality of sanctions.

According to the draft law, it is irrelevant for the application of sanctions whether the breach was culpable, non-culpable, or resulted from a technical error. The consumer’s right to pursue claims is not dependent on whether the breach could have influenced the consumer’s rational decision or whether the consumer suffered damage as a result of concluding the contract.

Outlook for 2026

The draft consumer credit bill introduces the most profound reform of sanctions for breaches of lenders’ obligations in years. The three-tier sanction model is in line with the direction set by the CJEU and the requirements of CCD2, strengthening consumer protection.

The new regulations will significantly increase the financial and regulatory risk on the part of lenders, forcing them to adopt more conservative risk assessment models, rigorous documentation, and control of the creditworthiness assessment process. At the same time, consumers will be given a more flexible tool, ranging from total debt forgiveness to partial cost reduction, depending on the severity of the violations.

The final version of the draft law is not yet known, and there is little time left to implement the Second Consumer Credit Directive. In January 2026, we expect the presentation of comments on the draft bill and a so-called consultation conference with the participation of representatives of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, which is the author of the draft.