POLAND Law and Practice Contributed by: Wojciech Ługowski, Lawarton Lugowski Kapica Spolka Komandytowa
4. Online Lenders 4.1 Differences in the Business or Regulation of Fiat Currency Loans Provided to Different Entities Poland’s commercial lending regulation varies signifi - cantly depending on the type of borrower. Consumers and SMEs Consumer lending is subject to strict regulations to protect individual borrowers from abusive and unfair practices. The primary legal framework governing these loans is the Consumer Credit Act, which man - dates transparency in loan agreements, ensuring con - sumers receive clear and comprehensive information before signing any contract. This includes pre-con - tractual disclosures, standardised contract require - ments and cost limitations such as interest rates and fees. Additionally, consumer protection laws impose restrictions on collateral, preventing lenders from demanding excessive or disproportionate security, particularly in personal loans. These measures ensure that consumers are not exposed to excessive financial risk when obtaining credit. SMEs run by natural persons may also be considered consumers under consumer legislation. If the lease is not a part of the central business activity of the enter - prise, the trader falls under the consumer category. However, if an SME does not qualify for consumer protection, the lending relationship is treated as B2B, and the regulatory framework for commercial lending (B2B) applies. Poland is in the process of updating its consumer lending regime to implement CCD2 (Directive (EU) 2023/2225) and the revised EU rules on the dis - tance marketing of financial services (Directive (EU) 2023/2673). A draft new Consumer Credit Act pub - lished in July 2025 is intended to replace the current 2011 Act, with the new rules to be applied in line with EU timelines. These reforms are expected to expand the scope of regulated consumer lending, strengthen affordability assessments and information require - ments, and increase scrutiny of digital distribution models, including short-term and BNPL-type prod - ucts.
support. Traditional financial instruments, such as stocks and bonds, fall under MiFID II regulations, requiring strict risk profiling and investor suitability checks. Security tokens, classified as financial instru - ments, impose additional licensing and transparency obligations. Cryptocurrencies and utility tokens, regu - lated under MiCA, require compliance with AML/CFT rules and enhanced risk disclosures. Integrating digital assets into robo-advisory services presents challenges such as price volatility, liquidity management and secure custody, requiring fintechs to align their models with evolving regulations. 3.2 Legacy Players’ Implementation of Solutions Introduced by Robo-Advisers Legacy financial institutions are integrating robo-advi - sory solutions through hybrid models, where AI-driv - en recommendations complement human advisers. Many are launching in-house robo-advisers or part - nering with fintechs for automated portfolio manage - ment and AI-driven customer engagement. 3.3 Issues Relating to Best Execution of Customer Trades Best execution ensures trades occur under the most favourable conditions, considering price, speed, costs and market factors. A major challenge is order routing transparency, requiring robo-advisers to avoid conflicts of interest and ensure client-focused execution. Liquidity frag - mentation across exchanges can lead to price dis - crepancies, complicating best execution. Market impact and slippage can affect execution quality, especially in volatile or illiquid markets. Robo- advisers must optimise execution algorithms to mini - mise delays and adapt to market shifts. Compliance with MiFID II regulations requires transparent execu - tion policies, monitoring and reporting to ensure regu - latory adherence.
628 CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook