Month: July 2025

On 31 May 2024, Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 (‘MiCA’) entered into force, opening a new chapter in the regulation of the crypto-asset market in the EU. Many observers welcomed this act with enthusiasm, considering it a ‘complete’ code for the industry. However, this enthusiasm proved premature. Even a cursory analysis reveals a significant gap: MiCA does not cover the phenomenon of decentralised finance (DeFi), including decentralised cryptocurrency exchanges (DEXs), where services are provided not by an identifiable operator but by code stored on a blockchain network. In doing so, the EU legislator has left out of the scope of regulation a segment which, from the perspective of technological innovation, best illustrates the revolution brought about by DLT technology.

The illusion of full regulation

MiCA, in Article 2 and the recitals of the preamble, provides for significant exclusions. MiCA does not apply to, among other things:

• deposits, including structured deposits,
• cash (unless they meet the definition of e-money tokens),
• NFT tokens, provided they are ‘unique and non-fungible’;

However, it will be crucial to pay attention to recital 22 of MiCA. In this recital, the legislator stated that ‘where crypto-asset services are provided in a fully decentralised manner, without intermediaries, they should not be covered by this Regulation.’

Therefore, MiCA effectively covers only centralised or hybrid models. Services where there is no operator, provider or controller are not covered by the new rules.

Lack of DeFi regulation: the premise of ‘fully decentralised’

In practice, not all DeFi business models will meet the criterion of full decentralisation.

Recital 22 of MiCA indicates that the regulation does not cover services provided in a ‘fully decentralised manner, without intermediaries’. Although the term ‘intermediary’ is not defined, it can be assumed that it refers to a legal entity that is actively involved in the operation, provision or control of services related to crypto-assets, whether directly or indirectly.

As a result, the assessment of ‘full decentralisation’ may require determining in each case whether any entity influences the functioning of the protocol or interface. Unfortunately, the EU legislator has not provided more detailed criteria or proposed a definition that would make it easier for supervisory authorities and market participants to clearly classify entities, which is likely to cause interpretation complications in the near future.

In practice, therefore, it will be the national supervisory authority – in Poland, the Financial Supervision Authority – that will decide whether a particular DeFi is subject to MiCa and whether it requires a CASP authorisation. For the time being, there are no detailed guidelines to assist in making such a decision, but it is likely that EU authorities will provide guidance on what elements should be taken into account in order to assess whether certain services are provided in a fully decentralised manner without intermediaries or not.

Partial decentralisation remains subject to MiCA

The ‘comfort’ of no regulation is not provided by partial decentralisation. Recital 22 itself stipulates that if ‘part of such activities or services are carried out in a decentralised manner’, MiCA obligations remain in force. Such a modern hybrid could be a DEX with an upgrade key, i.e. a smart contract that can be changed or suspended by the project management. In practice, such a protocol is not fully decentralised, as there is an entity that retains the ability to interfere with its functioning.

In such configurations, it may be possible to identify the controlling entity (even partially), and therefore the competent national authority may consider that such an entity can only operate after obtaining a CASP licence.

Issuance of crypto-assets ‘without an issuer’

The second exception provided for in recital 22 does not concern services but the issuance of crypto-assets. If a crypto asset ‘has no identifiable issuer’, the provisions of Titles II to IV of MiCA (concerning, inter alia, the information document, obligations towards token holders, issuance, offering and admission to trading of crypto assets) do not apply.

This exception may apply to issues made directly by an on-chain protocol launched without a central entity, e.g. through a fair launch or automatic minting mechanism, without the involvement of any managing person.

It is worth noting that MiCA does not specify what specific characteristics should determine whether a particular entity can be considered an issuer. Nevertheless, the degree of control over the issuance process and the possibility of linking specific persons or structures to the management of the issuance or the economic benefits derived from it may be of key importance.

Practical consequences for the market

• The national authority (in Poland – the Polish Financial Supervision Authority) will have to determine whether there is an ‘intermediary’ in a given project model and whether the issuer can be identified. Under the draft Polish law on the cryptoasset market (June 2025), the KNF will gain instruments to restrict access to or block the interface to such a website.
• Entrepreneurs should assess the level of centralisation of their products today. Projects that use multisig to upgrade a contract, charge transaction fees or control issuance revenues, or set rules for service/token management may qualify as CASPs.
• Investors should be aware that the absence of an issuer or CASP also means that there is no European regulatory protection under MiCA.

Conclusions

MiCA is only the first step towards a harmonised crypto-asset market. By drawing a line in recital 22, the European legislator has recognised that DeFi requires a separate – perhaps entirely new – regulatory approach. Until such a framework is developed:

• full decentralisation remains the only way for a service to fall completely outside MiCA;
• any element of centralisation may entail licensing obligations;
• the national authority will have to assess whether it is dealing with DeFi or not.

Autonomous vehicles are one of the most revolutionary technologies in the automotive industry, generating both enthusiasm and legal concerns. One of the key questions raised by experts and legislators is the issue of liability for damage caused by these modern means of transport. Although the development of autonomous vehicles promises to improve road safety, legal challenges related to determining who will be liable for any accidents are inevitable. Are existing Polish regulations and liability rules sufficient in the context of new technologies? In this article, we analyse how the current regulations apply to the principles of repairing damage caused by autonomous vehicles and what changes may be necessary to ensure adequate social and economic protection in the era of digital innovation in transport.

Civil liability of vehicle owners – the principle of risk and autonomous vehicles

In Polish law, the basis for liability for traffic damage is Article 436 of the Civil Code, which provides for liability on the basis of risk. This means that the owner of a motor vehicle is liable for damage caused regardless of fault. In principle, therefore, even in the case of an autonomous vehicle, its owner may be held liable.

Is this rule sufficient in the context of vehicles that operate without human involvement? On the one hand, yes. These vehicles still pose a threat on the road, if only because of their weight, speed or the possibility of system failure. On the other hand, human involvement in their use is minimal, which calls into question the fairness of assigning liability directly to the user or owner.

It is also worth noting that road accident statistics in Poland show that the human factor remains the main cause of road accidents (91% of accidents in 2023. By comparison, accidents resulting from technical failures and other non-human causes accounted for only 2.5% [1]). However, in the case of autonomous vehicles, there is still a risk of algorithm errors, component failures, connectivity problems and cybersecurity breaches, which can lead to situations where accidents cannot be avoided. Autonomous technologies therefore do not eliminate risk entirely, and the vehicles themselves still pose a threat, if only because of their weight and speed.

Exoneration of the owner and the role of force majeure

The question arises as to the adequacy of exoneration grounds in the context of autonomous means of transport. Traditionally, force majeure could be a basis for exclusion of liability. In the case of modern vehicles that communicate with infrastructure and are capable of detecting extraordinary events, the application of this exception may be limited. Furthermore, technical failures are generally not considered force majeure, and the risk of their occurrence is borne by the vehicle owner.

Driver fault and the level of vehicle autonomy

Polish law provides for a special case of liability for traffic accidents, regulated in Article 436 § 2 of the Civil Code. This is a departure from strict liability, introducing the principle of fault in the case of vehicle collisions (this applies only to mutual claims between owners) or so-called courtesy transport. This solution raises significant legal doubts, especially in the context of autonomous vehicles.

Autonomous vehicles with a high level of autonomy are designed in such a way that the user cannot take control of the vehicle. This excludes the attribution of liability for driving errors or the imposition of obligations that could later be considered culpable under current traffic regulations. Such cases may lead to an inability to assign blame, as it is difficult to establish clear and fair criteria for assessing the behaviour of a vehicle passenger. In the context of autonomous vehicles, the only exceptions may be extreme cases, such as deliberate damage to the vehicle.

The problem also arises in situations where autonomous vehicles require the user to take control in emergency situations. This can lead to confusion about the responsibilities of the person in the vehicle and their role as an ‘emergency’ driver. In practice, liability for damage caused by autonomous vehicles could only be attributed in fairly narrow cases, e.g. when the user failed to take control in time.

In addition, in the event of a collision involving traditional and autonomous vehicles, the current legal framework may lead to unfair consequences. The liability of the owner of a traditional vehicle will be easier to prove and enforce, which cannot be said for claims against the owner of an autonomous vehicle. In such cases, alternative solutions are proposed, such as assigning liability to the owner of the autonomous vehicle regardless of fault, by way of exception.

Manufacturer’s liability for autonomous vehicles as dangerous products

Finally, manufacturer’s liability for dangerous products can be analysed in the context of autonomous vehicles. According to the Civil Code, Directive 85/374/EEC and the newly adopted but not yet implemented PLD Directive (2024/2853), the manufacturer’s liability is based on the principle of risk, which means that the manufacturer is liable for damage regardless of fault. This liability may also extend to other entities involved in the production or distribution of vehicles, such as material manufacturers or importers (the new provisions extend this list).

In the context of autonomous vehicles, this means that liability for damage may be transferred to their manufacturers, who benefit from bringing these technologies to market. Such a regime aims to encourage manufacturers to develop safer solutions that minimise the risk of compensation payments.

The basis for applying the provisions on liability for dangerous products is to determine whether autonomous vehicles can be considered such products. A product is considered dangerous when it does not provide the expected level of safety in normal use. In the case of autonomous vehicles, advanced technology does not exempt them from this criterion. On the contrary, the complex design of these vehicles argues in favour of subjecting them to a strict liability regime.

Although current legislation may have some shortcomings, which will be partially addressed by new regulations, manufacturer liability regardless of fault, combined with additional measures such as compulsory civil liability insurance, could be an effective way of compensating for damage caused by modern technologies.

AI system operator – a new liable entity?

The 2020 European Parliament Resolution on civil liability for artificial intelligence introduces the concept of a new category of entity – the artificial intelligence system operator.

An operator who manages an AI system, whether front-end or back-end, could be liable on a risk basis for any damage caused by the physical or virtual actions of a high-risk AI system, as well as devices and processes using that system, and therefore also, with a high degree of probability, autonomous vehicles. The operator would be liable for damage caused by other systems on a fault basis, and it would not be possible to invoke the fact that the damage was caused by the autonomous operation of the system as a defence.

This opens the door to the creation of a new, more flexible category of liability that could cover both users and AI system operators.

However, there is still no precise definition of ‘operator’, and the scope of their responsibilities remains a matter of debate – whether they will exercise ongoing control over the integrated vehicle movement algorithm or be assigned to a specific device as a kind of individual ‘guardian’.

There are also ideas to create a compensation fund or to make this group subject to compulsory civil liability insurance. Such a fund could be financed by vehicle manufacturers, users and car-sharing companies, but the details of how it would work are still pretty abstract.

The need for legislative changes – the future of legal regulations

Autonomous vehicles, as high-risk technologies, require a new legislative approach. Experts point to the need to:

• adapt the provisions of the Civil Code to the realities of autonomous transport;
• create a precise definition of an ‘AI system operator’;
• extending the list of responsible entities;
• developing a system of compulsory third-party liability insurance for autonomous vehicles and entities involved in their operation;
• considering the creation of a compensation fund.

Summary: liability for damage in the era of autonomous transport

The issue of liability for damage caused by autonomous vehicles is a problem that still has no clear solution. Current regulations are not keeping pace with the rapid development of technology, especially when it comes to highly automated vehicles. Traditional fault-based liability seems insufficient here, and the need to introduce strict liability is becoming increasingly apparent. There is also a need to define the role of vehicle operators and clarify their potential obligations. It will also be important to adapt insurance regulations to ensure effective compensation for damages. This entire process requires flexibility in regulations, which should take into account both the technological revolution and the protection of the interests of injured parties.

[1] National Police Headquarters, Traffic Department, Road accidents in Poland in 2023, https://statystyka.policja.pl/st/ruch-drogowy/76562,wypadki-drogowe-raporty-roczne.html, p. 25.

📣 Jacek Cieśliński in Puls Biznesu on the correct labelling of promotions

R.pr. Jacek Cieśliński (manager at LBK&P) gave a valuable statement on the correct labelling of promotions in the latest article in Puls Biznesu. 🌟

According to current regulations, every promotion must be clearly communicated, and sellers are required to inform customers of the lowest price of goods or services in the last 30 days, regardless of the form of promotion. This can be a discount, a bargain, or a price reduction visible on a red label.

🔴 Mistakes that companies often make:

1. Providing an outdated price – often, instead of the lowest price in the last 30 days, the temporary price before the promotion started is indicated.
2. Using misleading slogans such as ‘up to 70% off’ when most products have a 10-15% discount.
3. Graphical errors, e.g. red labels on prices that have not actually been reduced.
4. Promotions lasting for months without an end date

💬 Jacek Cieśliński draws attention to the problem of interpreting regulations, which is common among sellers. Too often, there are abuses that can lead to intervention by the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK).

👉 Correct labelling of promotions not only helps to avoid penalties, but also builds customer trust. Every promotion must be transparent, and businesses should remember that accurate price information is the key to fair business.

Would you like to know more? Read the article in Puls Biznesu: link

#LBKPLegal #JacekCieśliński #PulsBiznesu #Promotions #Law #Business #UOKiK

In an era of growing environmental awareness among both consumers and businesses, terms such as greenwashing and green claims are increasingly appearing in discussions about sustainable development and responsible business. In this article, we explain exactly what greenwashing is, what risks are associated with the use of dishonest ‘green’ claims, and what legal regulations are in place in Poland and the European Union to counteract these practices. You will also learn how to avoid accusations of greenwashing and build a transparent, environmentally friendly brand image in line with applicable regulations.

What are greenwashing and green claims?

Greenwashing is an increasingly common marketing practice whereby companies create a false or misleading impression that their products or services are more environmentally friendly than they actually are.

In this way, companies take advantage of growing consumer awareness of environmental issues by creating a ‘green’ image without taking any real action to protect the environment. Such actions may bring companies short-term image and sales benefits, but in the long run they result in a serious loss of customer trust and real legal and financial consequences.

In the context of greenwashing, the term ‘green claims’ is increasingly being used to refer to marketing statements designed to convince consumers that a product or service has a positive impact on the environment. Green claims are becoming a popular tool for companies responding to market demands for sustainability and consumer expectations for transparency in environmental activities.

Unfortunately, research by the European Commission indicates that as many as 40% of such green claims are unsubstantiated or contain information that misleads consumers. This means that many of them are examples of greenwashing, which not only undermines consumer confidence but also distorts fair competition in the market.

In response to these abuses, the European Union is working intensively on the introduction of the Green Claims Directive. The new regulations, planned to come into force by the end of 2026, are intended to establish clear and uniform rules for the use of green claims in marketing communications. According to the draft, companies will be required to back up their environmental claims with specific and verifiable evidence, preferably confirmed by independent experts and verifiers. The aim of the directive is not only to protect consumers from being misled, but also to support companies that are genuinely implementing sustainable development policies. In addition, the regulations are intended to increase transparency in supply chains and reduce the risk of unfair practices in the area of ESG (Environmental, Social, Governance).

Source: Green Claims – EU Circular Economy

Examples of greenwashing – how does it work in practice?

Greenwashing takes many forms that can be difficult for the average consumer to detect. Below are some of the most common examples:

• Advertising products as ‘eco-friendly’, ‘biodegradable’ or “natural” without any evidence to support these claims.
• Claiming that a product is ‘100% natural’ even though it contains artificial additives or synthetic substances.
• Using non-existent, fictitious eco-certificates or symbols to suggest that a product is environmentally friendly, even though this is not actually the case.
• Claiming that a company is ‘climate neutral’ or ‘carbon neutral’ even though it does not take any effective measures to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in practice.
• Using images of animals, nature symbols or colours associated with ecology to give consumers the impression of environmental responsibility without actually backing up these claims.

Greenwashing – what consequences and penalties await companies?

Greenwashing carries serious risks, not only to a company’s image, but also legal and financial risks. Here are the key consequences that companies engaging in such practices may face:

• Financial penalties – in Poland, penalties for unfair marketing practices, including greenwashing, are high. According to the Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices, the penalty can be as high as 10% of the company’s annual turnover. Such sanctions are intended to have a preventive and deterrent effect.
• Reputational damage – the biggest threat to companies accused of greenwashing is the loss of customer trust. In the age of social media and growing consumer environmental awareness, information about unfair practices spreads quickly. The result is a rapid decline in customer loyalty and a reduction in brand value.
• Loss of access to ESG financing – banks, investment funds and other investors are increasingly verifying companies’ compliance with the EU taxonomy and sustainability standards. Detection of greenwashing may result in the withdrawal of financing or the loss of preferential lending terms, including access to so-called green bonds.
• Lower ESG rating – agencies assessing corporate sustainability are lowering the ratings of companies involved in greenwashing. Such a negative rating translates into a poorer perception of the company on the capital market and among investors.
• Green default risk – if funds from green financial instruments (e.g. bonds) are used contrary to the declared objectives, investors may demand the return of funds and compensation.
• Class action lawsuits and social organisation activities – violations related to greenwashing may result in court and administrative proceedings, as well as pressure from consumer and environmental organisations.

High-profile examples of greenwashing from the global and Polish markets

• The Volkswagen scandal – Dieselgate – one of the most famous cases of greenwashing, in which Volkswagen advertised its cars as environmentally friendly while installing software that manipulated emissions results. This resulted in penalties of approximately $34.7 billion (mainly in the US), numerous lawsuits, compensation payments and a drop in share value of around one third. This case made regulators aware of the serious consequences of greenwashing when treated as systemic fraud.
• Deutsche Bank and DWS – the German financial supervisory authority fined the asset management company DWS €25 million for misleading investors and misusing ‘green’ slogans that did not correspond to the company’s actual ESG activities.
• Polish example – BO Energy – at the end of 2022, the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection imposed a fine of over PLN 28 million on BO Energy (photovoltaic industry) a fine of over PLN 28 million for unfair practices, such as misleading promises of cooperation with the Ministry of Climate and offering allegedly ‘free’ energy audits. This was the highest consumer fine in Poland in 2022.

Legal regulations against greenwashing in Poland and the EU

In Poland and at the European Union level, there are a number of regulations aimed at eliminating greenwashing:

• Act on Counteracting Unfair Market Practices – prohibits misleading consumers in marketing communications, which also includes greenwashing. Companies that violate these regulations are subject to heavy financial penalties.
• Act on Combating Unfair Competition – protects against unfair practices in business activities that may mislead consumers, including in the area of environmental claims.
• CSRD (Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive) – requires companies to report on their sustainability performance. These reports must be transparent, verifiable and reliable, which helps to verify the accuracy of green claims.
• Green Claims Directive – scheduled to be implemented by the end of 2026, the directive will introduce strict requirements for the use of green claims in marketing, imposing an obligation to prove their accuracy and ensure transparency of communication.

How to avoid accusations of greenwashing? Basic principles for companies

To avoid the risk of accusations of greenwashing, companies should follow a few key principles:

• Data reliability – all marketing communications should be based on verified, scientifically proven facts about the environmental impact of products and services.
• Precise terminology – avoid vague, unclear terms such as ‘eco’ or ‘environmentally friendly’ if they cannot be clearly proven. Environmental certificates and labels should be verifiable.
• Transparency – the company should disclose information about its environmental activities, certifications, environmental audit results and the stages of implementation of its sustainability policies.
• Continuous monitoring and updating of communication – marketing messages must be regularly reviewed and updated in line with the actual status of the company’s activities and legal requirements.

Legal support in the fight against greenwashing

Professional legal support is invaluable at every stage of planning and implementing a marketing strategy related to environmental claims. Our law firm can help you with:

• Analysing advertising messages for compliance with applicable regulations.
• Assessing the legal risk associated with the use of eco-friendly terms and symbols in the promotion of products and services.
• Preparing and implementing transparent environmental communication policies.
• Training marketing and PR teams on compliance with green claims regulations.
• Legal representation in disputes or inspections by authorities.

Honest and reliable environmental communication is not only a legal requirement, but also the foundation for building lasting trust with customers and business partners. Greenwashing is not only a reputational risk, but also a real financial and legal threat. Therefore, companies planning marketing activities using eco-friendly themes should ensure the transparency and authenticity of their message.

Contact us

If you would like to learn more about how to communicate effectively and safely about environmental issues while avoiding greenwashing, please contact our law firm. We will help you comply with applicable law and build a credible, sustainable brand image.

The European Accessibility Act (EAA) is a groundbreaking European Union directive that aims to ensure that people with disabilities have full access to products, services and public spaces. By introducing uniform accessibility rules in Member States, the EAA removes technological and social barriers, enabling people with disabilities to participate actively in social and economic life.

Why is the EAA important for entrepreneurs?

On 26 April 2024, the Sejm passed a law on ensuring that certain products and services meet accessibility requirements by economic operators, which transposed the European Accessibility Act into Polish law.

The provisions of the Act will enter into force on 28 June 2025, and from that date, entrepreneurs should market products that meet accessibility requirements and offer accessible services in accordance with the provisions of this Act.

This is not only a legal obligation, but also a great opportunity for growth and improvement of your company’s image. Compliance with accessibility standards can increase your competitiveness in the market and expand your customer base to include people with disabilities who may have had limited access to your products and services in the past.

The main objectives of the EAA and the Act on ensuring that certain products and services meet accessibility requirements by economic operators:

1. Elimination of barriers – facilitating access to products and services for people with various types of disabilities.
2. Empowering consumers – ensuring equal opportunities for everyone to use services and products.
3. Harmonisation of standards – introducing uniform accessibility regulations across the European Union, eliminating the need to adapt to local regulations.

Who is affected by the EAA?

The Act on ensuring the accessibility of certain products and services by economic operators (and the EEA) applies to a wide range of businesses:

• Manufacturers – must ensure that their products meet accessibility standards.
• Importers – responsible for verifying the compliance of products from outside the EU.
• Distributors – should check that the products they offer meet accessibility standards.
• Authorised representatives – (Authorised representatives are entities acting on behalf of a manufacturer within the EU. On the basis of a power of attorney, they are required to at least: a) keep EU declarations of conformity and technical documentation for 5 years; b) provide the supervisory authorities with the required information and documents; c) cooperate with the authorities to remedy non-compliance of products).
• Service providers – companies providing services must adapt them to accessibility requirements.

As can be seen, the new regulations apply to almost all companies. Although micro-enterprises (fewer than 10 employees and an annual turnover of less than EUR 2 million) are partially exempt from the obligations, this is not always the case – they are subject to them, for example, if they use ready-made e-commerce systems.

What products and services does the EAA cover?

The Directive and, consequently, the Polish Act cover:

• Products:
• Computer equipment, operating systems, terminal equipment for telecommunications services
• Payment terminals, ATMs, self-service machines
• E-book readers
• Services:
• Telecommunications, banking, transport (road, rail, air)
• E-commerce
• Consumer end-use devices with interactive computing capabilities used to offer or provide services: a) telecommunications, b) access to audiovisual media services

Importantly, products that meet the accessibility requirements set out in Articles 7–11 are used to offer or provide services. This means that the requirements also apply to, for example, company websites. -(Websites)

Exceptions to which the requirements do not apply include, among others

1) services offered or provided by micro-enterprises;

2) websites and mobile applications in the field of:

1. a) maps and interactive maps, including geoportals, where these maps, interactive maps, including geoportals, contact details and geographical location are presented in a digitally accessible manner, as referred to in the provisions of the Act of 4 April 2019 on the digital accessibility of websites and mobile applications of public entities (Journal of Laws of 2023, item 1440),
2. b) content that is not financed or created by a given economic operator and is not under its control;

Important!

Directive on the accessibility of products and services, the so-called European Accessibility Act (EAA)

Directive (EU) 2019/882 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 April 2019 on the accessibility requirements for products and services (hereinafter: European Accessibility Act) was transposed into EU law in 2019. The European Accessibility Act requires Member States to implement measures to ensure greater accessibility, including:

• transport services (e.g. ticket booking);
• payment services;
• e-books and devices for reading them;
• self-service devices (e.g. ATMs).

The European Accessibility Act requires certain types of economic operators to ensure the accessibility of selected goods and services (unlike the 2016 Directive on digital accessibility, which only applies to public sector bodies). It is currently being implemented by Member States.

Source: https://www.gov.pl/web/dostepnosc-cyfrowa/jakie-akty-prawne-dotycza-dostepnosci-cyfrowej

European Accessibility Act (EAA) – key requirements for businesses

The European Accessibility Act (EAA) introduces a number of requirements for businesses aimed at ensuring that digital products and services are fully accessible to people with disabilities. The key standard is compliance with WCAG 2.1 guidelines at AA level, but the requirements also cover other functional and organisational aspects that must be met by companies. Below are the most important ones:

1. Accessibility of websites and mobile applications

Websites and mobile applications must comply with WCAG 2.1 at AA level, which means, among other things:

• Ensuring adequate contrast between text and background so that content is easy to read for people with visual impairments.
• The ability to use the website using only a keyboard (without the need for a mouse), which is crucial for people with limited manual dexterity.
• Adapting content to assistive technologies (e.g. screen readers) to ensure full access to content for blind and visually impaired people.
• Responsiveness – websites and applications must display and function correctly on different devices (computers, smartphones, tablets).
• Clearly marked buttons, links and forms – they must be easy to identify and perform their functions in an unambiguous manner.
• Intuitive, consistent navigation and clear page layout

1. Digital content and materials

• Alternative descriptions (alt text) for every image, graphic and non-text element so that blind people can understand the content of these elements using assistive technologies.
• Subtitles and audio description for videos and other multimedia so that deaf and visually impaired people can fully enjoy these materials.
• Forms and purchasing processes
• Forms must be designed in an intuitive, understandable and fillable manner for people with different types of disabilities.
• Error messages in forms should be unambiguous and understandable, indicating to the user what needs to be corrected.
• The entire purchasing process should be accessible and possible to complete without the assistance of third parties – this means that users with disabilities should be able to go through the purchasing process independently.

1. Customer communication channels

• Contact channels such as chat, forms and helplines should be available to all users, including deaf people, who should be able to use text-based forms of communication and alternatives, particularly in terms of offers and methods of service provision (e.g. text-based chat).

1. Support for assistive technologies

• Websites and apps should be fully compatible with assistive technologies, such as screen readers, text enlargement software, text-to-speech tools, etc.

1. Regular auditing and monitoring

• Businesses are required to assess the compliance of their services/products with accessibility requirements.
• They should identify potential accessibility barriers and implement necessary improvements on an ongoing basis to maintain compliance with regulations.

In addition

The service provider is required to:

1) in the terms and conditions of service or other equivalent document, make publicly available in writing, in paper or electronic form, and in a manner accessible to persons with special needs as defined in Article 12(2), the following information:

1. a) the service offered and provided,
2. b) information necessary to use the service,
3. c) how the service meets accessibility requirements;

The full scope of the obligations of the manufacturer, distributor, importer and service provider can be found in Chapter III https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/D2024000073101.pdf As an LBKP, we naturally help to identify and implement all requirements.

How to prepare your company for EAA implementation?

1. Conduct an accessibility audit

Identify areas for improvement, such as missing alternative descriptions or contrast issues.

2. Engage specialists

Work with accessibility experts, developers, and UX/UI designers. If you have any legal doubts about what obligations you need to fulfil, please contact us.

3. Conduct user testing

Test your solutions with people with different types of disabilities to ensure that they are truly accessible.

4. Organise training for your team

Train all employees responsible for content creation, customer service and product development.

5. Develop a long-term plan

Create a schedule for regular audits and update procedures.

Consequences of non-compliance:

Failure to comply with the EAA and the Act may result in serious penalties:

• Financial penalties – up to ten times the average monthly salary in the national economy for the previous year, as announced by the President of the Central Statistical Office in the Official Journal of the Republic of Poland ‘Monitor Polski’ on the basis of the provisions on pensions and disability pensions from the Social Insurance Fund, but not exceeding 10% of the turnover achieved in the financial year preceding the year in which the penalty was imposed, determined as at the date of the decision referred to in Article 56(1) or Article 65(1).
• Obligation to adapt a product or service – if a company does not respond to a customer complaint within 30 days, it will have to make the requested changes within 6 months.
• Possibility of withdrawing a product from the market
• Supervisory checks (Article 40 of the Act)

Summary

The European Accessibility Act is not only a legal requirement, but also an opportunity for your business to grow. Compliance with the EAA brings benefits both in terms of business development and improving your image on the market. Preparing for the EAA requires identifying areas for improvement, implementing appropriate procedures and continuously improving accessibility.

Do you need support with implementing accessibility?

Contact us.

Regulation (EU) 2023/1114 of the European Parliament and of the Council on markets in crypto-assets (MiCA) is a landmark piece of legislation adopted by the European Union aimed at harmonising rules on crypto-assets across the EU. The introduction of MiCA is a response to the growing popularity of digital assets. The implementation of the new regulations brings significant changes for Polish companies and all participants in the cryptocurrency market. In this article, we comprehensively explain the most important issues concerning the MiCA transition period, as well as the details of Polish legislative solutions that will affect the activities of crypto-asset service providers (CASPs).

You can read more about this here: https://lbplegal.com/rozpoczecie-stosowania-mica-co-oznacza-dla-rynku-krypto-w-polsce/

MiCA transition period at EU level – 18-month safety buffer

The basic premise of the MiCA Regulation is to introduce a certain ‘time buffer’ during which existing crypto-asset service providers will be able to operate under the old rules laid down in national legislation. According to Article 143(3) of the MiCA Regulation, this period is 18 months from the date of application of the new rules, until 1 July 2026.

During this time, companies providing crypto-asset services may continue to operate in accordance with existing local regulations until they obtain the formal authorisation required by MiCA in accordance with Article 63 or until such authorisation is refused, whichever comes first. This is a particularly important stage for all entities, both those already present on the market and new players planning to enter the cryptocurrency market in the European Union.

Flexibility in setting transition periods at national level

MiCA provides flexibility for Member States in determining the length of the transition period. Recital 114 of the Regulation emphasises that if national regulations in force before 30 December 2024 were significantly less stringent than the MiCA requirements, Member States may decide to shorten or even omit the transitional period. This allows them to raise the standards of crypto-asset entities more quickly to the level set by the EU.

Article 143(3) MiCA – specific conditions for the use of the transitional period in the EU

Pursuant to Article 143(3) of MiCA, crypto-asset service providers who provided their services in accordance with applicable national law before 30 December 2024 may continue to operate under the existing rules until 1 July 2026, until they obtain authorisation under Article 63 of MiCA or until authorisation is refused. Only these companies will be eligible for transitional arrangements – companies that commence operations after that date will be subject to the full MiCA regime from the outset.

Provisions concerning entities not covered by the register of virtual currency activities in Poland

Poland is participating in the process of implementing the MiCA Regulation and in June 2025 submitted a draft law on the crypto-asset market to the Sejm.

Pursuant to Article 162 of the draft law, an entity which, on 29 December 2024, provided crypto-asset services within the meaning of Article 3(1)(16) of MiCA (for more information on the scope of services, see https://lbplegal.com/rozpoczecie-stosowania-mica-co-oznacza-dla-rynku-krypto-w-polsce/), but which do not constitute economic activities consisting in the provision of services in the field of:

a) exchange between virtual currencies and means of payment,

b) exchange between virtual currencies,

c) intermediation in the exchange referred to in point (a) or (b),

d) keeping accounts referred to in Article 2(17)(E) of the AML Act

– may provide these services in relation to crypto assets under the existing rules, but for no longer than:

• 4 months from the entry into force of the draft Act,

• or for 9 months from the date of entry into force of the draft act, if, within 3 months of the date of entry into force of this act, it submits a complete application for the issuance of this authorisation and receives the notification referred to in Article 63(4) of the MiCA Regulation.

Regulations for companies entered in the VASP register (i.e. the register of virtual currency activities) in Poland

For companies that were entered in the national VASP register on the date of entry into force of the draft act, similar rules apply – they may continue to operate under the existing rules for 4 months from the date of entry into force of the draft law, or for 9 months from the date of entry into force of the draft law if they submit a complete application within the prescribed time limit and receive notification of acceptance of the application.

An exception is if such an entity is removed from the register before the expiry of the specified time limits.

Practical consequences for the market – what do companies need to do?

The regulatory changes resulting from MiCA and the Polish Cryptoasset Market Act impose an obligation on companies to closely monitor the current legal situation and develop an implementation strategy. The key actions that companies operating on the market should take include, in particular:

• verifying their current legal status (whether the company is registered as a VASP, whether it has been operating in accordance with the existing regulations),
• preparing a complete set of documentation necessary to apply for a CASP licence,
• monitoring transition deadlines and responding quickly to any changes in legislation,
• implementing new internal procedures in accordance with MiCA and national requirements and guidelines from supervisory authorities.
• Failure to meet deadlines or lack of adequate preparation may result in the loss of the ability to operate on the crypto asset market in Poland and throughout the EU.

Documentation and formal obligations – challenges for companies

Preparing for the full implementation of MiCA will require companies to conduct an in-depth analysis and carry out numerous formal and legal activities. The CASP registration process is multi-stage and includes:

• developing AML/KYC policies and measures to prevent money laundering and terrorist financing,
• preparing compliance documentation and risk management rules,
• implementing comprehensive IT security and personal data protection procedures,
• providing detailed descriptions of services, products, technological architecture and mechanisms for securing customer funds,
• presenting risk analyses and business continuity plans.
• You can read more about this here: https://lbplegal.com/uzyskanie-zezwolenia-casp-kluczowe-informacje-dla-firm-kryptowalutowych/

Why start preparing for MiCA now?

Currently, despite the fact that the act implementing MiCA in Poland has not yet entered into force, it is worth starting to prepare documentation and analyse your own activities in terms of the new regulations in advance. Companies with a complete set of ready-made documents will be able to go through the CASP registration process faster and obtain the required permits. This allows for smooth continuation of operations and gaining a competitive advantage in the market.

Importantly, current legislative analyses do not indicate any risk of significant changes to the key provisions of the draft law, which is why preparatory measures are already fully justified at this stage.

No possibility to submit an application before the law enters into force

It is not yet possible to submit an application for CASP registration to the relevant authority, as the law enabling this process has not yet entered into force. However, our clients are providing services in accordance with the existing regulations, while preparing with us the documentation necessary to apply for a CASP licence.

The work on the bill so far does not indicate that the draft will undergo major changes. We recommend that you start preparing all the required documents now. Due to the broad scope of the guidelines already set by the EU authorities, completing all the documentation and introducing the necessary procedures may be time-consuming and require careful planning. Starting these preparations in advance will allow you to go through the registration process smoothly and adapt your business to the new requirements.

Gain an edge with professional MiCA support

The implementation of the MiCA Regulation and the new Crypto Asset Market Act in Poland requires a multi-stage, well-planned process covering legal, technical and management issues. Proper preparation and understanding of the transition periods are key to the smooth functioning of the crypto asset services market, both for existing and new entities.

Our law firm offers comprehensive support in the implementation of MiCA requirements – from completing documentation and training staff to ongoing compliance support and legal advice. We encourage companies that want to efficiently and effectively adapt to the new regulations to contact us – from consultation, through the preparation of policies and procedures, to the finalisation of the CASP registration process.

Don’t wait until the last minute – a delayed response to legislative changes may mean losing your competitive position and growth opportunities. Contact us!

In April 2025, NVIDIA surpassed a market capitalisation of $2.79 trillion, with its shares rising by over 170% in a year to become the third most valuable publicly traded company in the world, behind Microsoft and Apple, and achieving a 90% share of the AI chip market in 2024. Although just a few years ago NVIDIA was mainly associated with graphics cards for gamers, today it is the foundation of the global digital economy based on artificial intelligence. Its GPUs – particularly the H100 series – are not only a strategic asset for data centres, but also the main driver behind the development of foundation models, including the most advanced general-purpose language models such as ChatGPT.

CUDA – the AI engine that is changing the rules of the game

At the heart of NVIDIA’s transformation into a global leader in artificial intelligence is CUDA (Compute Unified Device Architecture), a proprietary programming platform that enables the full power of GPUs to be harnessed for scientific, industrial and commercial applications. CUDA is not just a technology layer – it is a critical infrastructure for the scalability and efficiency of AI models.

It is not without reason that this platform is sometimes referred to as the ‘invisible AI operating system.’ It is a key element in the lifecycle of AI-based systems: from training and validation to the deployment of models in real-world applications. In practice, it is CUDA that defines how quickly and at what scale modern AI systems can be developed.

GPU vs CPU – why are graphics processing units crucial for artificial intelligence?

In the context of training large language models and processing data on a massive scale, classic processors (CPUs) are becoming insufficient. The key features of GPUs – especially those from NVIDIA – give them an advantage in AI environments:

• Parallel architecture – GPUs such as the NVIDIA H100 contain thousands of cores that enable simultaneous processing of large data sets – ideal for the matrix operations used in neural networks.
• Energy efficiency – next-generation graphics chips offer up to 25 times higher energy efficiency compared to previous solutions, which translates into lower operating costs and greater scalability.
• High-bandwidth memory – technologies such as HBM2 (High Bandwidth Memory) enable lightning-fast processing of terabytes of data – essential for real-time and critical applications.

The closed CUDA ecosystem – both a strength and a weakness

As a closed solution, CUDA offers huge performance gains – up to 1,000 times faster over the last decade. However, the fact that this technology is controlled by a single company raises concerns:

• Technological dominance – over 80% of AI models – including all major foundation models – are trained in the CUDA environment.
• Lack of alternatives – open solutions such as AMD ROCm and Intel oneAPI have less than 10% market share, mainly due to weaker optimisation and lack of full compatibility with popular AI libraries.
• Network effect – the more developers use CUDA, the more difficult it is to switch to competing solutions – this creates a closed ecosystem that is difficult for the market to counterbalance.

AI infrastructure and European law: a gap in the AI Act?

The AI Act (EU 2024/1689) is the first comprehensive piece of legislation regulating the use of artificial intelligence in Europe. However, it focuses mainly on the algorithmic level – on training data, model transparency and the risks of their use.

Meanwhile, the computational layer – the infrastructure without which these systems cannot exist – remains outside its direct scope.

CUDA is not classified as a standalone AI system, but its impact on the compliance, auditability and security of AI systems is undeniable. Without the ability to verify the operation of the infrastructure – both in terms of hardware (black-box GPUs) and closed software – it is difficult to talk about full implementation of the principles of transparency and accountability.

Legal consequences – monopoly, dependency, lack of audit

The lack of regulation in the field of computing infrastructure raises specific legal and systemic issues:

• Limited auditability – the closed nature of CUDA makes it difficult to meet the requirements of Article 13 of the AI Act regarding transparency and verifiability.
• Monopoly risk – a price increase of over 300% for GPUs between 2020 and 2024 may indicate abuse of a dominant position (Article 102 TFEU).
• Lack of EU technological sovereignty – as many as 98% of European AI data centres use NVIDIA technology, raising serious questions about infrastructure independence and resilience to external disruption.

Is accountability without transparency possible?

The AI Act establishes chain liability – responsibilities apply not only to system developers, but also to users and distributors. However, market reality shows that end users have no real way of assessing the CUDA infrastructure they use indirectly. There are no technical standards or requirements disclosing the details of how closed platforms operate.

Recommendations for regulators and the AI industry

Although not formally classified as an AI system, CUDA should be recognised as a component that affects compliance, auditability and security. Recommendations:

• EC guidelines and AI Office – it is necessary to develop legal interpretations that take into account the impact of computing platforms on AI systems, as is the case with cloud computing and the GDPR.
• Promoting technological neutrality – EU technology support programmes (e.g. Digital Europe) should favour open, interoperable technologies.
• Revision of the scope of the AI Act – in the long term, it is worth considering updating the AI Act to also cover technological infrastructure as a factor determining the safety and compliance of AI systems.

CUDA – a technological marvel or a legal risk?

CUDA is undoubtedly a technology that has enabled unprecedented progress in the field of AI. However, its closed structure, market dominance and lack of regulatory oversight may mean that responsibility for AI systems becomes illusory. For the EU, which is committed to transparency, ethics and digital sovereignty, this is a challenge that can no longer be ignored.

* * *

ART. 13 AI Act

Transparency and information sharing with users

1. High-risk AI systems shall be designed and developed in a manner that ensures sufficient transparency of their performance, enabling users to interpret the results of the system and use them appropriately. The appropriate type and level of transparency shall be ensured in order to enable the supplier and the user to fulfil their respective obligations set out in Section 3.
2. High-risk AI systems shall be accompanied by a user manual in an appropriate digital or other format containing concise, complete, accurate and clear information that is relevant, accessible and understandable to users.
3. The user manual shall contain at least the following information:
4. (a) the identity and contact details of the supplier and, where applicable, its authorised representative;
5. (b) the characteristics, capabilities and limitations of the performance of the high-risk AI system, including:

(i) its intended use;

(ii) the level of accuracy, including its indicators, the level of robustness and cybersecurity referred to in Article 15, against which the high-risk AI system has been tested and validated and which can be expected, as well as any known and foreseeable circumstances that may affect those expected levels of accuracy, robustness and cybersecurity;

(iii) any known or foreseeable circumstances related to the use of the high-risk AI system in accordance with its intended purpose or under reasonably foreseeable conditions of misuse that could give rise to a risk to health and safety or fundamental rights as referred to in Article 9(2);

(iv) where applicable, the technical capabilities and features of the high-risk AI system to provide information relevant to the explanation of its performance;

(v) where applicable, the performance of the system in relation to specific individuals or groups of individuals for whom it is intended to be used; (vi) where applicable, specifications regarding input data or any other relevant information regarding the training, validation and testing data sets used, taking into account the intended use of the high-risk AI system; (vii) where applicable, information enabling users to interpret the results of the high-risk AI system and to use those results appropriately;

1. (c) changes to the high-risk AI system and its performance that have been planned in advance by the supplier at the time of the initial conformity assessment;
2. (d) the human oversight measures referred to in Article 14, including technical measures introduced to facilitate the interpretation of the results of high-risk AI systems by users;
3. e) the necessary computing and hardware resources, the expected life cycle of the high-risk AI system and any necessary maintenance and servicing measures, including their frequency, to ensure the proper functioning of that AI system, including software updates;
4. f) where applicable, a description of the mechanisms included in the high-risk AI system that enable entities using it to correctly collect, store and interpret event logs in accordance with Article 12.

ART. 12 TFEU

Prohibition of abuse of a dominant position

Any abuse by one or more undertakings of a dominant position within the internal market or in a significant part thereof shall be prohibited as incompatible with the internal market in so far as it may affect trade between Member States.

Such abuse may, in particular, consist in:

1. a) directly or indirectly imposing unfair purchase or selling prices or other unfair trading conditions;
2. b) limiting production, markets or technical development to the prejudice of consumers;
3. c) applying dissimilar conditions to equivalent transactions with other trading partners, thereby placing them at a competitive disadvantage;
4. d) making the conclusion of contracts subject to acceptance by the other parties of supplementary obligations which, by their nature or according to commercial practice, do not relate to the subject of such contracts.