Voices - Polish Bank Association
Within the context of the broader wave of digital finance regulations (PSD3, PSR, DORA, FIDA), how does the banking sector view the EAA? Is it being integrated strategically, or is it getting lost in regulatory overload?
This is an important question, and it requires addressing three key dimensions. On the one hand, there is horizontal legislation such as the European Accessibility Act, which establishes a general legal framework applicable across the entire market. On the other hand, sector-specific regulations, such as PSD3, PSR, DORA and FIDA, target exclusively the banking sector.
From our perspective, three main challenges arise. The first is regulatory overlap. In numerous cases, the same situation is governed by several legal acts, which makes it unclear how institutions should comply. This is particularly problematic with regard to, for instance, information and adaptation obligations, requirements concerning the form and timing of information or enhanced advisory duties towards customers with lower levels of financial literacy.
The most serious difficulties occur when multiple horizontal and sector-specific regulations apply simultaneously, introducing very similar yet not identical requirements. As a result, institutions may be forced to report the same information to different authorities multiple times. Even when reports are nearly identical, minor variations can necessitate entirely separate reporting processes, thus significantly increasing the administrative burden.
The second challenge concerns the hierarchy of legal acts. In practice, it is often unclear which regulation takes precedence. While the principle of lex specialis derogat legi generali suggests sector-specific rules should override those of a general nature, this exclusion frequently applies only in selected aspects, which creates legal uncertainty.
Therefore, if the EU legislator considers a new horizontal regulation sufficiently important to supersede existing sector-specific rules, they should conduct a proper review and explicitly state, in the final or transitional provisions of the legislation, which articles are excluded. This would provide vulnerable consumers with a high level of protection without incurring excessive costs that ultimately translate into higher prices for financial services.
The final issue is the notoriously neglected principle of proportionality. Although frequently referenced, rarely is it applied in practice. Supporting individuals with lower financial literacy is essential but overwhelming them with excessive documentation is counterproductive. Research clearly shows that information overload has effects like its deficit, discouraging engagement and undermining consumer protection.
Supervisory authorities and public administrations should therefore focus on obligations that generate real added value for consumers and eliminate those that do not, as unnecessary requirements harm both consumers and businesses.
A clear example of a missed opportunity in this respect is the new Consumer Credit Directive. The European Commission announced the regulation would reflect the realities of the digital market, acknowledging that many consumer credit products are obtained via mobile devices and small screens.
In practice, however, the new rules fail to accommodate these realities. Regardless of whether a consumer credit is provided by a bank, a non-bank lender or through buy-now-pay-later schemes, consumers still receive lengthy PDF documents that are extremely difficult to read on mobile devices due to small font size.
Let me offer another accessibility-related example. The Commission replaced a single information form with two documents, i.e., a full form and a summary. However, the legislation does not clarify which document prevails in the event of discrepancies. The solution offered is purely formalistic. According to the extensively debated CCD2 (Consumer Credit Directive 2), for instance, a user is allowed to spread information across two pages if the former provides insufficient space.
Clearly, the key objective is to prioritise essential information. We must move away from the notion that consumers should be inundated with data. In the context of pre-contractual information, it is crucial to communicate that excessive information often leads to confusion, causing critical details to be overlooked. Simply put, less is more.
What is your primary conclusion concerning the regulatory burden that you intend to communicate to EU bodies? Do EU regulators recognise the cumulative impact of all these simultaneous requirements?
At the European level, individual institutions often operate in silos, seeing only a fraction of the regulatory framework. For instance, DG FISMA, the key directorate responsible for banking sector legislation, focuses primarily on sectoral rules. However, they possess limited insight into horizontal instruments, such as Directive 93/13 on unfair contract terms. This act, while straightforward, is surrounded by extensive CJEU case law that imposes significant costs and burdens, thus requiring banks to keep a close watch on their contractual provisions to ensure they are not abusive.
Similarly, other departments oversee regulations like DORA, which falls under DG CONNECT. Since these directorates lack a holistic view, they frequently argue that banks, not being overly burdened, can 'handle it'. Yet, the cumulative weight of the requirements becomes clear. The issue is not just the volume of regulation but the redundancy – provisions overlap without providing additional value to the protected parties, whether they be consumers, persons with disabilities or employees. We must constantly ask ourselves if this additional hurdle in the race is truly necessary to achieve our objective. Such holistic assessment is precisely what is currently missing.
Let us also address the positive aspects of the European Accessibility Act. From your experience, has it had a constructive impact on the banking sector and on customer experience?
Undoubtedly, a significant advantage of this Act is that it establishes a clear a benchmark for acceptable standards in serving customers with specific needs. Despite ongoing uncertainties regarding interpretation, it is clear from the trilogue negotiations, at both national and European levels, that there is a genuine willingness to develop a shared understanding of key concepts. This contributes to legal certainty, which is crucial for banks. Knowing what is expected and how compliance will be assessed allows institutions to act confidently without fear of retrospective criticism.
There is also hope within the sector that the directive will contribute to greater financial inclusion. While comprehensive data is not yet available, early indications suggest that accessibility requirements have encouraged banks to introduce internal roles and initiatives focused on people with specific needs and user-centred design.
If you could recommend one change to how EU institutions approach digital regulation for banking, whether it is timing, harmonisation, implementation support or something else, what would genuinely help banks deliver better services while meeting all these requirements?
The most important concept is legal certainty. This means, first and foremost, ensuring that legislators do not develop law in isolation from market realities. Continuous consultation with market participants from the earliest stages of the legislative process is essential to better understand practical implications and to avoid creating concepts that are detached from how the market actually functions.
The European Commission’s workshops seem a particularly inspiring illustration, as they offer a platform for questions and concerns raised by stakeholders, and subsequently develop Q&A documents. Recently, for example, in connection with the Instant Payments Regulation in euro, following two or three workshops attended by representatives from different payment markets, the Commission published official guidance outlining its interpretation of the rules.
Although such documents are accompanied by numerous disclaimers, most notably that only the Court of Justice of the European Union is empowered to provide binding interpretations, they nevertheless offer a valuable point of reference. In the event of disputes, banks and payment service providers can rely on these Q&As as interpretative guidelines. Such initiatives are a tangible step toward increased legal certainty and more coherent regulatory implementation.
Another example of good regulatory practice is the Payment Accounts Directive (PAD), which has successfully harmonised a wide range of concepts across the market. Under this directive, a bank is required to clearly specify which legal definitions it relies on when offering payment services.
For instance, when a customer enters into a payment account agreement, the bank must explicitly define “payment account” within the meaning of the Directive’s specific provision. In this way, banks align their internal rules with EU-level definitions, simplifying compliance and interpretation. Despite requiring some upfront effort, this approach creates legal certainty by ensuring that products, services, and fees are unambiguously classified. It prevents situations in which different concepts are confused or inconsistently applied, and allows both institutions and consumers to understand precisely how a given product is regulated.
What is your honest assessment regarding the wave of digital regulation such as the EAA? Is it pushing European banking toward genuine innovation in customer service, or primarily creating competitive disadvantage compared to less-regulated markets?
The growth of any market, particularly the digital one with its vast user base, must be built on a foundation of consumer security. It is only when individuals feel safe that they are willing to spend money on intangible goods or remote transactions. They must be certain that if the product is damaged, of poor quality or not delivered, they will receive a full refund. Otherwise, the transaction would not happen, and, consequently, the market would not develop.
Undoubtedly, the European Union’s commitment to consumer protection is what constitutes one of its greatest strengths, directly bolstering the internal market – the cornerstone of its independence from external suppliers.
Furthermore, apprehension acts as a barrier to innovation. Scared buyers will not embrace even the most cutting-edge products. It took a while before BLIK, for example, gained Poles’ trust. As soon as it did this payment method experienced exponential growth.
In conclusion, the digital world can be daunting for many, as innovation inherently carries certain risks. Therefore, it is crucial that we engage in a mutual dialogue to clarify our needs, identify areas of misunderstanding, and define what is essential. In this context, the role of organizations representing people with special needs is vital. They provide us with representative, data-driven insights that allow us to focus our efforts on what truly matters.
Interview by Karolina Mendecka
Business Accessibility Forum Director