In an era of extraordinary growth in online shopping, consumers are increasingly encountering practices regarded as manipulative—techniques that have been used, or are still being used, even by very popular e-commerce platforms. An analysis of the actions taken by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) suggests that in the coming months there will be continued, in-depth scrutiny of practices known as “dark patterns.”
“Dark patterns” are not explicitly defined in EU or Polish competition law. Typically, however, they share common features: a manipulative character in the digital environment aimed at inducing consumers to make purchasing decisions they might not have made had they been fully informed about the seller’s practices. It is also worth noting that some of these practices have been explicitly included on the so-called “black list” of prohibited practices under the Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices (ACUMP), a fact frequently relied upon by the President of UOKiK in his decisions.
“Some ‘dark pattern’ practices are prohibited per se, meaning without the need to examine their specific circumstances, because they are listed in the ACUMP—for example: false claims about limited product availability, suggesting an offer is exceptional when it is not, or hidden costs added at the final stage of the purchasing process,”
says Marcin Rudnik, Partner at Wolf Theiss.
Fake countdown timers and preselection—the scourge of Polish e-commerce?
At the end of 2024, the President of UOKiK took part in a global review of sales practices that could qualify as “dark patterns” online. As part of so-called sweep days (from the English “to sweep,” in this case referring to sweeping away bad marketing practices), the websites and mobile applications of 642 businesses were examined. The review found that 75.7% of them used at least one such practice, while 66.8% used two or more.[1]
In Poland, at least one prohibited practice was identified on half of the ten websites examined. The most common was preselection—choosing and pre-ticking one of the available options for the consumer, often the most expensive one—forcing the consumer to actively “uncheck” a pre-imposed, frequently less favorable option.
Other commonly encountered “dark pattern” practices include timers showing fictitious deadlines for promotions, never-ending “limited-time” discounts, or misleading information about how many customers are interested in a given offer or which product is most frequently chosen. There are also cases of automatically adding additional products (e.g., insurance) to a user’s cart without the consumer’s consent, as well as making it difficult to cancel a subscription or newsletter—for example, by multiplying follow-up questions or requiring the consumer to complete a series of additional steps.
“There may be many more examples of such practices, and they can take various forms and potentially evolve alongside technological developments. Each time businesses use different types of incentives aimed at consumers, they should first assess whether, in a given case, these incentives could be considered an unlawful marketing technique under consumer protection law. Due to the lack of a closed catalogue of ‘dark pattern’ practices, any ambiguous practice that may lead to a poorly informed purchasing decision in the digital environment may be subject to scrutiny and prompt action by the consumer protection authority,”
emphasizes Aleksandra Niski of Wolf Theiss.
The importance of this issue for UOKiK is further underscored by the announcement of a conference scheduled for March 2026 on the implementation of artificial intelligence in public administration, with a particular focus on research into “dark patterns” and the practical use of AI in enforcement proceedings.
Severe penalties imposed by the President of UOKiK
It should be remembered that if the President of UOKiK deems a given practice to be misleading or potentially misleading and infringing collective consumer interests, a fine of up to 10% of the turnover generated in the financial year preceding the year in which the penalty is imposed may be levied. In addition, the business may be required to eliminate the ongoing effects of the infringement in the manner specified in the decision. This follows directly from Article 24 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection. Moreover, there are already numerous examples of such penalties imposed on businesses operating in Poland.
For instance, one of the leading online sales platforms on the market was fined PLN 17 million for engaging in “dark pattern” practices. According to UOKiK, the unlawful practice consisted of providing misleading information regarding delivery times and product availability.
“Importantly, in the authority’s view, the fact that information about the estimated nature of availability and delivery times was included in the platform’s terms and conditions did not negate the possibility of misleading consumers. As the authority pointed out, the manner in which information was presented on the product page—precise figures regarding the number of items available and specific delivery dates—reinforced consumers’ belief in their accuracy, while the estimated nature of delivery times was not explicitly communicated at the order stage,”
comments Aleksandra Niski.
“This is particularly significant for businesses, many of which make continuous efforts to meet increasingly stringent consumer law compliance requirements, focusing primarily on properly regulating consumer rights and obligations in the store or platform terms and conditions available on their websites. However, recent practice of the President of UOKiK shows that relying solely on properly drafted terms and conditions is no longer a safe solution, and the clear presentation of information along the consumer’s so-called ‘purchase path’ should not be treated as a secondary issue,”
adds Marcin Rudnik.
Another entity penalized recently (in 2025) was an e-commerce company based in Warsaw (nearly PLN 15 million) for disseminating accurate information about price reductions on the websites www.born2be.pl and www.renee.pl in a manner that could mislead consumers as to the actual existence of a special purchasing benefit.
UOKiK is also conducting proceedings against, among others, a well-known on-demand delivery platform offering food and everyday goods, in connection with suspected use of so-called “drop pricing.” This practice involves adding previously undisclosed mandatory fees at the final stage of placing an order, preventing consumers from comparing prices during the selection of goods or services and potentially resulting in higher payments—even though consumers believed they were choosing a cheaper option.
How to ensure compliance with competition law?
As Marcin Rudnik emphasizes, given the President of UOKiK’s very stringent enforcement practice to date, from a business perspective it is crucial to design the entire consumer purchase journey (and not merely the online store’s terms and conditions) in the digital environment in a way that is not only attractive, but also clear and user-friendly. This enables consumers to make informed decisions and, in turn, reduces legal risk.
[1] https://uokik.gov.pl/wielkie-wymiatanie-zlych-praktyk-w-e-commerce
Source: https://ceo.com.pl/uokik-bierze-na-celownik-dark-patterns-manipulacje-w-e-commerce-pod-lupa-27267
