New proceedings against financial institutions

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) recently announced the initiation of explanatory proceedings concerning practices that may violate the collective interests of consumers against two lending institutions and a consumer credit broker. The announcement also indicates that the office is currently conducting similar proceedings against seven lending institutions.

The aim of UOKiK’s actions is to examine the way in which entrepreneurs offer their customers non-financial additional services—including medical, language, and insurance packages—accompanying credit products.

Consumers not always aware of the offer

According to information provided by the UOKiK, the way these services are presented may mislead consumers. UOKiK pointed out that “consumers were not aware that other products were also being sold to them along with the loan, nor were they aware of the costs of these additional services.”

According to the President of UOKiK, such practices may lead to circumvention of the regulations on maximum non-interest credit costs, which in turn increases the total cost of the liability on the part of the consumer.

Non-interest credit costs – the essence of the problem

The issue of non-interest credit costs remains a serious challenge for the lending sector. The provisions of the Consumer Credit Act stipulate that the total cost of credit includes the costs of additional services if their purchase is necessary to obtain the credit. This means that if a consumer purchases an additional service voluntarily, its cost should not be included in the total cost of credit.

In practice, however, the distinction between a voluntary and a necessary service can be ambiguous. It is crucial that the customer’s consent is informed, preceded by full information about the terms and conditions and consequences of purchasing the service. Lack of transparency in this regard may lead to the risk of violating regulations or considering the entrepreneur’s actions contrary to good practice.

We can speak of the voluntary nature of the purchase of a given service when the customer’s consent to conclude the contract was given consciously, was based on a choice (to buy or not to buy), and was preceded by the provision of information about the product. The entrepreneur must therefore ensure the transparency of the additional offer – the customer should be aware of the terms and conditions and consequences of concluding such a contract.

Regulatory uncertainty and information obligations

The current provisions of the Consumer Credit Act do not explicitly specify how lending institutions should provide information about additional services to comply with the requirement of voluntariness. Moreover, the consumer credit information form does not have to contain information about services purchased voluntarily.

The Act imposes an obligation to provide information in the information form only about services that are necessary to obtain a loan or to obtain it on specific terms. As a result, entrepreneurs operate in conditions of regulatory uncertainty, which increases the risk of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) initiating explanatory proceedings.

Do the actions of entrepreneurs violate the collective interests of consumers?

The UOKiK’s statement does not indicate that entrepreneurs have broken the law – the office only points out that lending processes may not be sufficiently transparent and do not provide enough information about the costs of additional services.

In this case, it is necessary to consider whether the President of the UOKIK can accuse the entrepreneurs in question of violating the collective interests of consumers. This seems doubtful. In order for a practice to be considered a violation of the collective interests of consumers, it must be contrary to the law or good morals. According to case law, a violation of the law occurs when an entrepreneur fails to fulfill an obligation imposed on them by a legal act. Meanwhile, an analysis of the announcement shows that the entrepreneurs did not violate any mandatory provisions of law. It can be assumed that the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection will attempt to demonstrate that the companies’ actions are aimed at circumventing the provisions on credit cost limits.

Potential consequences for the market

Observation of the actions taken so far by the President of the UOKIK leads to the conclusion that he will rather seek to demonstrate that the actions of entrepreneurs are aimed at circumventing the provisions of law on maximum non-interest credit costs.

The effects of such proceedings may go beyond the actions of the UOKiK itself. Increasingly, the impact of the proceedings conducted by the office on the supervisory relations of the Polish Financial Supervision Authority (KNF) towards supervised institutions is being observed. In extreme cases, this may even lead to the initiation of control proceedings or the withdrawal of licenses to provide financial services

We will take a closer look at the latter issue in the next article, which I encourage you to read today.

Conclusions

The current actions of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) show that the line between legally offering additional services and attempting to circumvent regulations is not sufficiently clear. Entrepreneurs operating in the loan market should therefore place particular emphasis on transparency, clear communication, and documenting the voluntary nature of the customer’s decision.
It is not just a matter of formally fulfilling information obligations, but of building trust in relations with consumers and the supervisory authority.

On December 9, 2025, at 10:00 a.m., I invite you to an online meeting on “The new Consumer Credit Act 2025 – how to prepare a financial institution for the effects of CCD II.”