Polish Court Upholds Consumer Law Violations Against Biedronka, Cuts Fine to $21.5 Million

Key Takeaways

• Consumer Protection Violations: Poland's Court of Competition and Consumer Protection upheld findings that Biedronka deliberately misled customers about the conditions attached to promotional vouchers.
• Reduced Financial Penalty: The court lowered the fine against Jeronimo Martins Polska from nearly $26.9 million (PLN 105 million) to nearly $21.5 million (PLN 84 million).
• Undisclosed Restrictions: Vouchers advertised as full refunds were subject to product-category limitations, minimum spending requirements and other conditions that were not clearly communicated.
• Intentional Misconduct: The court agreed with UOKiK that the violations were intentional, citing evidence of deliberate omissions and the company's previous regulatory warnings.
• Appeals Remain Possible: The judgment is not final. UOKiK intends to appeal the penalty reduction, while Jeronimo Martins Polska may challenge the ruling.

Deep Dive

A promise of a full refund has cost Polish supermarket chain Biedronka nearly $21.5 million (PLN 84 million) after a court upheld findings that the retailer deliberately misled customers about the terms of its promotional offers. Poland's Court of Competition and Consumer Protection agreed with the country's competition and consumer protection authority, UOKiK, that Biedronka's “Special Wednesday” and “Valentine's Wednesday” campaigns violated consumer protection law. The promotions advertised a “100% refund in the form of a voucher,” without adequately explaining that customers would have to meet additional conditions to use the vouchers.

The court also upheld the regulator's finding that the violations were intentional. It reduced the original penalty of nearly $26.9 million (PLN 105 million), imposed in December 2025, to nearly $21.5 million (PLN 84 million).

The judgment is not final. Biedronka's operator, Jeronimo Martins Polska, may appeal to the Court of Appeal in Warsaw, while UOKiK has announced that it intends to challenge the reduction in the fine.

The Fine Print Behind a Full Refund

The problem with Biedronka's promotions was not that customers received nothing. They received vouchers, but the conditions attached to them substantially limited what the advertised refund was worth in practice.

A customer buying chocolate, for example, could receive a voucher worth approximately $3.58 (PLN 13.99). That voucher could be used only to purchase cosmetics, and only after spending at least $7.67 (PLN 29.99) on those products.

A customer purchasing Vienna sausages could receive a voucher redeemable against fruit and vegetables, again subject to a minimum spending requirement on a subsequent purchase.

Other restrictions applied. Refunds on products sold by weight were limited to the value of one kilogram, and customers could receive only one voucher per loyalty card. Those conditions were not presented alongside the advertised promise with sufficient clarity, according to UOKiK. Instead, consumers had to find the details online, on notice boards or on the vouchers themselves. In some cases, that meant learning the terms only after making the purchase.

The regulator concluded that Biedronka had given customers a misleading impression of what the promotions offered. The court agreed.

Evidence of a Deliberate Decision

The finding of intentional misconduct rested on more than the wording of the advertisements. According to UOKiK, evidence showed that Jeronimo Martins Polska deliberately decided to omit important conditions when preparing advertising for its “Valentine's Wednesday” promotion. The company chose not to disclose which products customers could purchase with their vouchers or how much they would need to spend to redeem them. The regulator had also raised similar concerns with Biedronka before.

UOKiK said it had repeatedly informed the retailer that promotional benefits and their accompanying restrictions should be communicated with equal prominence. The company had previously been subject to two commitment decisions concerning how it presented promotional terms.

Those earlier interventions formed part of the evidence supporting the regulator's conclusion that the company knew what was required of it.

“A 100% refund sounded like a great deal. In reality, the terms of the promotion once again misled consumers,” UOKiK President Tomasz Chróstny said in the agency's November 10 announcement.

Chróstny said Biedronka had understood its obligations and nevertheless intentionally violated the law. He called on the retailer to change its promotional practices to prevent further consumer harm.

Previous Penalties Against Biedronka

The judgment is the latest in a series of consumer protection and competition cases involving Jeronimo Martins Polska. The Court of Competition and Consumer Protection previously upheld a penalty of approximately $129.4 million (PLN 506 million) in a case involving the unfair use of contractual advantage. It also upheld a penalty of approximately $40.9 million (PLN 160 million) concerning irregularities associated with Poland's Anti-Inflation Shield. Both decisions remain subject to review by the court of second instance.

Two other cases have reached final conclusions. In proceedings concerning discrepancies between prices displayed on store shelves and those charged at checkout, the company paid approximately $29.4 million (PLN 115 million). Another case, involving incorrect labeling of the country of origin of fruit and vegetables, resulted in a payment of approximately $15.3 million (PLN 60 million).

The latest judgment therefore adds to an established record of enforcement proceedings against the retailer, although the legal status of the individual cases differs.

For UOKiK, the remaining dispute concerns the size of the penalty rather than the underlying findings. The regulator maintains that its original fine appropriately reflected the nature and seriousness of the violations.

Jeronimo Martins Polska has the opportunity to challenge the judgment itself. UOKiK, meanwhile, intends to seek restoration of the higher penalty. The court's findings of intentional misconduct stand at this stage of the proceedings, but the outcome remains open to appeal.

The GRC Report is your premier destination for the latest in governance, risk, and compliance news. As your reliable source for comprehensive coverage, we ensure you stay informed and ready to navigate the dynamic landscape of GRC. Beyond being a news source, the GRC Report represents a thriving community of professionals who, like you, are dedicated to GRC excellence. Explore our insightful articles and breaking news, and actively participate in the conversation to enhance your GRC journey