It is becoming increasingly common for businesses to use AI to generate advertising, as it can significantly speed up the creation of even the most complex marketing content. Equally, however, using AI in this way raises questions, for instance about the accuracy of advertising messages or data used to generate them. As a result, there is an increasing number of litigation cases concerning matters such as accountability of an advertiser where the AI-generated advertising might be misleading.

Recently, in an interesting and multifaceted advertising law case, TKP’s litigation team successfully obtained a ruling granting an injunction to secure evidence. The advertisement in question featured reviews posted on Google about the advertiser. The reviews were grouped according to subject matter and processed using AI tools, including tools used for opinion mining. Opinion mining analyses natural language to automatically identify and classify sentiment in a text. The advertisement thus incorporated AI-driven assessments of whether particular comments were positive or negative within predefined subject areas.

In a final and binding judgment, the Poznań Regional Court fully concurred with TKP’s client, that the Polish Act on Combating Unfair Competition might have been breached as a result of manipulative opinion mining. The court granted a motion to secure the materials used to create the advertisement, recognising them as potentially key evidence for the future case.

The materials in question included:

• a complete and technical description of the methodology followed to create the advertisement; including the AI tools used;
• a database containing the source data, i.e. Google reviews that had been filtered and processed by AI.

The ruling demonstrates that advertisers remain responsible for ensuring that AI-generated content is accurate, even when using advanced technologies, and especially where the generated content is incorporated into advertising directed towards consumers. Equally, the ruling reveals that businesses can take legal action against competitors, or protect their interests, even if key evidence of an infringement can only be obtained through separate ancillary proceedings.

The lawyers advising on the matter were the attorneys-at-law at TKP: Paweł Podrecki, Beata Matusiewicz-Kulig, Tomasz Targosz, Zbigniew Pinkalski, trainee attorney‑at‑law: Natalia Biernat and legal trainee: Janusz Trześniowski.

The ranking season brings further excellent news. We are delighted to announce that Traple Konarski Podrecki & Partners has once again been recognised in Tier 1 by Media Law International, reaffirming our position among the leading law firms in this field.

This distinction represents another significant achievement for our MCE team.

We extend our congratulations to the entire team, with particular recognition to Xawery Konarski for being named a Leading Lawyer.

The full ranking results are available on the MLE website.

On 24 February, 2026, the government approved a bill submitted by the Minister of Labour for amendment of the ICT Act, for the purpose of performing certain kinds of contracts. The bill comes as commercial operators have requested simpler procedures for entering into and servicing contracts, through allowing contracts to be concluded using the ICT system. This would result in optimization of costs.

The measures provided for in the bill include allowing the ICT system on the e-government website praca.gov.pl to be used to conclude freelance service agreements, or non-compete agreements, for instance, in addition to employment contracts. It would also considerably extend the group of firms that can use the system to enter into agreements. As the law stands at the moment, an agreement can only be concluded by natural persons, farmers, microenterprises, or employers with a workforce of up to nine persons. Should the bill come into effect, these restrictions will be abolished, and any firm wishing to do so will be able to use the system. It will also be possible to transfer to the system any agreement concluded outside the system, and for that agreement to continue to be effected within the system.

The statement of reasons for the bill states that the system’s functions will be expanded by enabling the system to be used for keeping records of employee attendance or of commencement of telework. This is not however strictly stated in the bill itself.

Polish legislators thus intend digitalization of employment relationship documentation as far as possible. It is possible at the moment to keep personal files in digital form, and foreigners’ work permit applications can only be submitted using the ICT system. Now, under the proposal, there are plans to enable nearly all employment relationship documentation to be placed in the ICT system. This is clearly aimed at simplifying and streamlining the handling of employment-related agreements overall. If the legislation is ultimately enacted, this will be a huge step forward for employers and employees alike. Hopefully, following the changes, the system will be sufficiently transparent and practical that it really will be an aid, and not hindrance, to the realization of agreements.

Legislation has still not been adopted in Poland to create a national regulator for the AI market. Member States were required to do this by 2 August 2025. In Poland this role is to be fulfilled by the newly formed Commission of the Development and Security of Artificial Intelligence (“Commission”). Meanwhile, under the latest version of the draft Polish act on AI systems, the Commission administrative matters will be dealt with by the Ministry of Digital Affairs. This raises questions about the independence of the Commission as a regulator.

The main argument put forward by proponents of this solution is the saving to be made on operation of the Commission, from the initial estimate for this cost of PLN 31 million per year to approximately PLN 23 million per year for the first few years. Despite the financial advantages, there are concerns that this proposal might not guarantee independence of the Commission and officials who will act on its behalf.

The AI Act requires that national AI regulators act independently, impartially, and in a non-discriminatory fashion.  However, in this context the persons acting on behalf of the Commission will be formally employed at the Ministry of Digital Affairs. While the legislative proposal provides for creation of a new, separate department within the ministry, responsible for assisting the Commission, the independence of this personnel could be regarded as purely fictional.

Performing tasks for the Commission by the personnel employed at the Ministry of Digital Affairs could even give rise to conflicts of interest. There is also a risk of pressure being exerted of a work-related or even political nature due to the executive being too closely tied to the Commission as a regulator.

The model proposed in the draft act on the AI systems, whereby the assistance of the Commission will be provided by the personnel of the Ministry of Digital Affairs, is clearly a departure from the norm.  As use of AI systems is becoming increasingly popular, it is important to build trust in the new regulator among market players and the public, in particular by ensuring that the Commission will operate in a transparent manner and not be subject to pressure.

On 2 March 2026, an amendment to the National Cybersecurity System Act, intended to harmonize Polish law with NIS 2, was published in the Journal of Laws. The new legislation will take effect as of 3 April 2026. According to government estimates, it will apply to more than 40 000 new organizations.

The promulgation of the amendment to the National Cybersecurity System Act is a turning point in almost two years of work to transpose NIS 2 into Polish law.

The moment of promulgation sets off a one-month vacatio legis, while the amendment itself will come into force on 3 April 2026, from which date milestones for the organizations subject to the new legislation – essential and important entities, will be counted.

The duration of certain milestones was extended in the course of the parliamentary work on the bill, resulting in the following schedule:

• 3 October 2026 – essential and important entities are required to determine their status by themselves and register accordingly;
• 3 April 2027 – essential and important entities are required to comply with most of the new requirements; this involves primarily adopting the appropriate technical and organizational methods within their information security management system;
• 3 April 2028 – only essential entities, but not important entities, are required to conduct their first IT security audit; from that date, security audits must be conducted a minimum of every three years;

In practice this means that there is one year for compliance with a vast majority of the new requirements, while in fact this may leave many organizations little time, especially when at the same time measures such as determining whether they are subject to the new laws, devising new procedures, adopting new technical measures and training personnel will have to be taken.

The penalties for failing to comply on time are a separate matter. While the new legislation provides for the possibility of severe fines for not complying with the statutory obligations, there is a noteworthy moratorium on fines. Under interim rules, it will not be possible to impose administrative fines for the first two years following enactment of the amendment. This will be the rule except for special category fines, which can be up to PLN 100 m, imposed for instance when non-compliance causes a serious threat to national defense and security, public order, or human life and health.

The President of Poland signed the bill but also referred the new legislation for review by the Constitutional Tribunal. The President’s referral related among other things to the controversy surrounding the system of classification as a high-risk supplier. A future Constitutional Tribunal ruling could have implications for the constitutionality of the new legislation, but this will not affect the enactment of the amendment, or the milestones set for the organizations concerned.

We’re proud to share some great news! The results of the Chambers and Partners Europe 2026 rankings are out! Traple Konarski Podrecki & Partners has once again been ranked among the top law firms in Europe, this time in four practice areas:

• TMT (Band 1)
• Intellectual Property (Band 2)
• Financial Services Regulation (Band 2)
• Data Protection (Band 2)

In this year’s edition, as many as 8 of our experts received individual recognitions:

TMT

• Xawery Konarski (Band 1)
• Agnieszka Wachowska (Band 2)
• Anna Jelińska-Sabatowska (Associate to watch)

Intellectual Property

• Prof. INP PAN dr hab. Paweł Podrecki (Band 3)
• dr Anna Sokołowska-Ławniczak (Band 3)
• dr Tomasz Targosz (Band 3)

Financial Services Regulation

• prof. UEK Jan Byrski, PhD hab. (Band 1)

Data Protection

• Prof. INP PAN dr hab. Grzegorz Sibiga (Band 3)

We would like to thank our Clients for their trust, and congratulate all the distinguished individuals, as well as the entire TKP team!

Another recognition for TKP in Chambers and Partners Global 2026!

The Intellectual Property team has once again been ranked among the leading law firms in Chambers and Partners Global 2026, achieving Band 2.

Individual distinctions were awarded to:

• Prof. INP PAN Dr. Hab. Paweł Podrecki – Band 3
• Anna Sokołowska-Ławniczak, Ph.D. – Band 3
• Tomasz Targosz, Ph.D – Band 3

This is not only a source of pride for us, but also confirmation of the consistent work and commitment of the entire team. Congratulations!

We would also like to thank our clients for their trust and excellent cooperation.

The results are available on the website.

We are proud to announce that we have once again been ranked among the best law firms in Poland.

The firm received a Silver award in the enforcement and litigation category.

Individual recommendations were received by:

• Prof. INP PAN dr hab. Paweł Podrecki – Bronze: enforcement and litigation
• Anna Sokołowska-Ławniczak Ph.D. – Silver: prosecution and strategy

Congratulations to the entire TKP team! We are proud that we can continue to develop our IP practice at the highest level together.

We sincerely thank our clients, colleagues and the ranking organizers!

The judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 19 June 2025 in the case concerning pharmacy advertising (C-200/24) brought an end to the absolute ban and at the same time opened a new discussion on how the law should be applied during the transitional period, i.e. until the Pharmaceutical Law is amended. On the one hand, the pharmaceutical inspection authorities and the autonomous pharmacy association continue to rely on Article 94a of the Pharmaceutical Law; on the other, administrative courts have consistently overturned further decisions, invoking the primacy of EU law. As a result, the market has found itself in a state of suspension—pharmacies are trying to operate under new rules, authorities are imposing fines, and courts are annulling them. It is precisely this practical “dual-track” situation that currently defines the core of the dispute over the future of pharmacy advertising in Poland.

The CJEU judgment did not automatically change the wording of article 94a of the Pharmaceutical Law, and for this reason pharmaceutical inspectorates continue to adhere to the existing approach, under which the advertising ban is interpreted as absolute. Consequently, administrative proceedings are still being conducted and fines imposed for activities deemed to constitute pharmacy advertising, even if they amount merely to neutral information about the availability of services or opening hours.

Administrative courts are only beginning to address the new reality. In the first rulings, references were made to the need to incorporate the CJEU judgment into rulings, and the direction is clear—national courts, applying the principle of the primacy of EU law, will have to overturn decisions of the pharmaceutical inspectorate issued solely on the basis of the literal ban set out in Article 94a of the Pharmaceutical Law. An absolute ban on pharmacy advertising can no longer be reconciled with the requirements of European law, and the practice of the authorities must be adjusted accordingly.

The CJEU judgment immediately sparked a discussion within the pharmacy community. The strongest reaction came from the sector’s autonomous association. In a statement of 27 June 2025, the Supreme Pharmaceutical Chamber (Naczelna Izba Aptekarska, NIA) said that despite the CJEU judgment, Polish law still contains provisions protecting pharmacists and patients against sales pressure from pharmacy owners.

From the patients’ perspective, lifting the absolute advertising ban may mean a real improvement in access to information about pharmaceutical services. Pharmacies will be able to inform patients about vaccinations, preventive programs, or care for chronically ill patients. Until now, release of such information has been classified as prohibited advertising. The bill is now undergoing public consultation. While there will no longer be an absolute ban on advertising, advertising will still be strictly regulated. Lawmakers have proposed a broad definition of advertising, prohibited the offering of any kind of benefit, and introduced detailed rules restricting content and form, and interim provisions to close proceedings that are initiated but in which no final decision has been issued as at the date the new legislation takes effect.  In practice, the bill may lead to proper organization of the rules on the information that pharmacies communicate to patients (regarding for example pharmaceutical services). At the same time, there is a shift of responsibility for interpretation of terms such as the goal of increasing sales or any kind of benefit. For this sector, this is a time to take on an active role in the consultations while at the same time making preparations to ensure customer information compliance with the new regime.

As of 1 December 2025, a new system for the protection of geographical indications for craft and industrial products came into force across the European Union. Until now, EU-wide protection covered only foodstuffs, wine, and spirits. The new EU system of geographical indication protection now also applies to craft and industrial products whose quality, reputation, or other characteristics are attributable to their geographical origin.

Under the new system, craft products are goods produced entirely by hand or using hand tools, digital tools, or mechanical means, provided that manual input constitutes an essential component of the finished product. Industrial products, in turn, are those manufactured in a standardized manner, including through mass production and the use of machinery. In practice, the new system opens the way to protecting product categories including  glass and crystal, ceramic products, clothing, other textile products, jewelry, furniture, tools, cutlery, metal goods, watches/clocks, musical instruments, and paper/cardboard.

Geographical indications are word marks that indicate that a given product originates from a specific place and is produced using local skills and traditions. A product may enjoy protection as a geographical indication if it:
(i) originates from a specific area, country, or region;
(ii) has a quality, reputation, or characteristic linked to that area, country, or region, such as the specificity of raw materials, unique production technology, or a reputation built over generations;
(iii) is produced at least partially in that area, country, or region.

Geographical indications for craft and industrial products are subject to registration at the European Union level, in accordance with EU Regulation 2023/2411. An application to register a geographical indication is assessed in two stages: at the national level (before the Polish Patent Office) and at the EU level (before the EUIPO). Upon registration, a product that  is protected as a geographical indication enjoys unlimited legal protection throughout the entire EU, regardless of the form in which it is used. In addition, the producer will be able to use a special visual geographical indication symbol and place it on the product or in marketing communications.

Registration of a geographical indication is an important development tool not only for producers, but also for countries and regions. It also benefits consumers by protecting them against counterfeit goods and unfair competition.

In November 2025, after more than a year and a half of government work, a bill amending the Act on the National Cybersecurity System was submitted to the Sejm—intended to implement the EU NIS 2 Directive. Although more than a year has passed since the deadline for implementing the NIS 2 Directive, the required legislation has still not been adopted in Poland.

While the bill relatively faithfully reflects the content and principles provided for in the NIS 2 Directive, the Polish legislator diverges somewhat from the directive, for example by including new, autonomous solutions). Below we describe the five most important differences:

1. Greater scope of entities affected
   The bill extends the scope of entities subject to the legislation, for instance by classifying small, managed cybersecurity service providers as essential entities, and by including advisory services under this term. The bill also brings entities providing domain name registration services into the digital infrastructure sector (regulated in the NIS 2 Directive in a partially separate manner) and defines particular categories of entities by reference to Polish legislation. This may at times give rise to discrepancies between the Polish and EU-level understanding of certain concepts.
2. Introduction of a registration obligation
   The amendment would require essential and important entities to submit an application for entry in the relevant register. Essential and important entities will have three months to submit the application, and failure to do so may result in the entity concerned being fined.
3. Extension of CSIRT powers
   The bill grants the competent CSIRTs the power to examine ICT products, services, and processes in order to identify vulnerabilities. For this purpose, CSIRTs will be entitled to use methods aimed for instance at reconstructing the source code of software, duplicating program code, or translating its form. At the same time, CSIRTs will not be bound by contractual provisions (in particular license agreements) relating to the examined ICT products, services, or processes, and conducting such examinations will not require the consent of the licensor or the holder of the ICT product, service, or process.
4. Introduction of the concept of a high-risk supplier
   The bill introduces the possibility of designating a supplier of hardware or software as a high-risk supplier if it poses a threat to  fundamental national security interests. As a consequence, essential entities, important entities, and entities subject to the DORA Regulation will not be allowed to put into use ICT products, services, or processes originating from such suppliers, and those already in use will have to be withdrawn.
5. Introduction of an administrative fine of up to PLN 100 million
   The proposal provides for the possibility of fining an essential or important entity up to PLN 100 million for the following:
   a) causing a direct and serious cyber threat to national defense, national security, public safety and order, or human life and health;
   b) causing a risk of significant property damage or serious disruption to the provision of services.

The bill will now undergo readings in both chambers of parliament, and may still be amended. Importantly, representatives of all major parliamentary groupings (including opposition parties) emphasize the importance and necessity of adopting this legislation. As a result, it has a strong chance of becoming generally applicable law in the near future.