We kindly inform you about the issuing of a binding decision by the President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection No. RGD-7/2026 of 4 September 2026, which lent credence to the Bank having engaged in practices infringing the collective interests of consumers, consisting in:

1) not making - no later than by the end of the working day following the day of receiving an appropriate notification from the consumer regarding the occurrence of an unauthorised payment transaction – reimbursement of the amount of the unauthorised payment transaction or restoration of the debited payment account to the state that would have existed if the unauthorised payment transaction had not taken place, despite the absence of any prerequisites entitling the Bank to not perform the above-mentioned action, i.e. with the Bank having justified and duly documented grounds to suspect fraud on the part of the consumer and informing the authorities appointed to prosecute criminal offences about this suspicion in writing or receiving a notification from the consumer about the occurrence of an unauthorised payment transaction after 13 months from the date of debiting the consumer's payment account, which may violate Article 46 sect. 1 of the Payment Services Act of 19 August 2011 (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 623) and harm the collective interests of consumers, and consequently constitute a practice violating the collective interests of consumers, referred to in Article 24 sect. 1 and 2 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection;

2) providing consumers - in replies to their reports on the occurrence of unauthorised payment transactions - with information on the verification by the payment service provider of the correct use of the payment instrument by using individual credentials in a way suggesting that the Bank's demonstration exclusively of the fact that the disputed payment transactions have been correctly authenticated constitutes at the same time demonstration of the authorisation of such a transaction and rules out its obligation to return the amount of the unauthorised transaction, which may mislead consumers regarding the entrepreneur's obligations under Article 46 sect. 1 of the Act of 19 August 2011 on Payment Services (Journal of Laws of 2026, item 623), as well as regarding the distribution of the burden of proving that the payment transaction has been authorised, which may constitute an unfair market practice, referred to in Article 5 sect. 1 sect. 2 pt. 1 and sect. 3 pt. 3 in conjunction with Article 4 sect. 2 of the Act of 23 August 2007 on counteracting unfair market practices (Journal of Laws of 2023, item 845) and violate collective interests of consumers, and consequently constituting a practice violating collective interests of consumers, referred to in Article 24 sect. 1 and 2 pt. 3 of the Act on Consumer and Competition Protection;

3) providing consumers - in responses to their reports regarding the occurrence of unauthorised payment transactions - with false information about the authorisation of transactions challenged by consumers, while simultaneously presenting information indicating that the transaction took place as a result of intentional or grossly negligent violation by consumers of at least one of the obligations referred to in Article 42 of the Act of 19 August 2011 on Payment Services (Journal of Laws of 2026, items 623) and in the agreement between the consumer and the Bank, which makes them liable for the challenged payment transactions referred to in Article 46 sect. 3 of the Act of 19 August 2011 on Payment Services, which may mislead consumers regarding their rights specified in Article 46 sect. 1 of the Act of 19 August 2011 on Payment Services, which may constitute an unfair market practice referred to in Article 5 sect. 1 and 2 pt. 1 and sect. 3 pt. 3 in conjunction with Article 4 sect. 2 of the Act of 23 August 2007 on counteracting unfair market practices (Journal of Laws of 2023, item 845) and violating collective interests of consumers, and consequently constitute a practice violating collective interests of consumers, referred to in Article 24 sect. 1 and 2 pt. 3 of the Act on Competition and Consumer Protection;

Content of the Statement

In connection with the issuance of the decision, the Bank undertook, among other things, to reconsider previously negatively considered reports regarding unauthorised payment transactions submitted by clients after 15 November 2022.

If you are a current customer of the Bank as of 8 October 2026 (the date on which the decision becomes final) and you reported to the Bank after 15 November 2022 that there were transactions that were not authorised by you, and the Bank considered your report negatively, then you do not need to perform any additional actions. We will reconsider your earlier report by 31 December 2027 at the latest, which may mean a change of the Bank's earlier decision.

If, on the other hand, you are no longer our client and you reported to the Bank after 15 November 2022 that there were transactions that were not authorised by you, and the Bank considered your report negatively, we will send you detailed information on the possibility of submitting a request for reconsideration of the report regarding an unauthorised payment transaction to the last correspondence address known to us. For this purpose, you can provide us with a current correspondence address at any branch of the Bank.

Exceptions to the reconsideration of previously rejected reports concerning unauthorised payment transactions are provided for in point XXII of the operative part of the decision of the President of UOKiK.