For over a decade in Poland, a total ban on the advertising of pharmacies and their activities was in force (Article 94a of the Pharmaceutical Law), allowing only information about location and opening hours. The ban was widely enforced and financially sanctioned. The number of issued decisions, imposed fines, and court judgments was counted in hundreds of documents and thousands of zlotys. All this lasted until 19 June 2025 and the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU).
What was it like?
Pursuant to Article 94a(1) of the Pharmaceutical Law, a categorical ban on the advertising of pharmacies, pharmacy outlets, and their activities applies in the Polish legal order, with the only permissible exception being the provision of information on the location and opening hours of the establishment. In judicial practice, this concept had so far been interpreted extremely broadly – advertising was considered to be virtually any action directed to the public that aimed to encourage the purchase of goods or services in a specific pharmacy, regardless of the form of communication (Voivodeship Administrative Court in Warsaw, VII SA/Wa 2215/07); therefore, it covered press advertisements, leaflets, banners, promotional brochures, communication of price promotions, and, of course, all online activity.
This ban also applied to non-pharmacy retail outlets with regard to medicinal products and medical devices, and its breach was punishable by a financial penalty imposed by the Provincial Pharmaceutical Inspector. The severity of these regulations is confirmed by numerous fines for seemingly informational activities: the Greater Poland Provincial Pharmaceutical Inspector imposed, among others, a fine of PLN 1,000 for displaying a basket with the “%” symbol and PLN 10,000 for an overly expressive advertisement of a COVID-19 vaccination point, while the Subcarpathian Provincial Pharmaceutical Inspector fined a pharmacy PLN 4,000 for placing prices in colorful stars. Administrative courts consistently upheld these decisions, considering as illegal all loyalty programs, discount vouchers, promotional leaflets, and even informing about the preparation of compounded medicines “within 15 minutes”, which, according to the Supreme Administrative Court (II GSK 501/21), constituted an unlawful incentive.
In this rigorous system, a special role was attributed to pharmacists and pharmacy managers. The Act on the Profession of Pharmacist and the Code of Ethics of the Pharmacist expressly prohibit them from participating in advertising, and due to statutory professional independence, a pharmacy manager may be held disciplinarily liable even for marketing activities imposed by the owner of a chain.
However, the culminating point in the debate on the limits of these prohibitions became the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) in case C-421/07 (Frede Damgaard), which shed new light on liability for advertising communication. The Court indicated that disseminating information about a product may be considered advertising even when carried out by a third party acting on its own initiative, completely independently of the manufacturer or seller. Although this judgment confirmed the broad definition of advertising, it simultaneously prompted reflection on whether Polish regulations, prohibiting pharmacies from almost all communication, go one step too far in relation to EU freedoms. Currently, this ban covers not only pharmacies but also non-pharmacy retail outlets with regard to medicinal products, which makes the Polish pharmaceutical market (still due to the regulations) one of the most restrictive areas in terms of communication with patients in the entire European Union. However, this should change soon.
What is it like now?
The CJEU ruled that the Polish ban is incompatible with EU law because it is total, unconditional, and disproportionate to the declared objectives of protecting public health. The judgment was delivered in the case European Commission v. Poland and was based, inter alia, on Article 8(1) of Directive 2000/31/EC (e-commerce) and Articles 49 and 56 TFEU (internal market freedoms), as we wrote in the article of 24 June last year: CJEU: Polish ban on pharmacy advertising incompatible with EU law – groundbreaking judgment of 19 June 2025 – AJ Law – law firm.
The Court pointed out the lack of distinction in Polish regulations between neutral information and commercial advertising. Such a restrictive approach resulted in the elimination from the market of substantive and useful communications for patients, which was considered a violation of the freedom to provide services and the freedom of establishment, particularly in the area of digital communication. As a result, the excessive rigidity of the regulation limited citizens’ right to reliable information about available healthcare services.
Following this ruling, Article 94a ceased to constitute an effective basis for imposing financial penalties. Although the provision formally still appears in the Act, in practice it remains ineffective, which forced the government to undertake legislative work on its amendment. The need to adapt the national legal order to EU standards has become a priority in order to restore system coherence and legal certainty.
What will it be like? Assumptions of the amendment: draft UD291
In response to the CJEU judgment, the Ministry of Health prepared a draft amendment (No. UD291), which abolishes the general ban and introduces a framework for permissible advertising. The draft was entered into the list of legislative works and public consultations on 12 December 2025. The draft constitutes an attempt to implement the judgment of the Court of Justice of the European Union (CJEU) of 19 June 2025 (case C-200/24), in particular by departing from the total ban on advertising of pharmacies and pharmacy outlets. However, the changes introduce other limitations that may have a significant impact on activities carried out not only in pharmacies but also in non-pharmacy retail outlets.
The essential elements of the draft (in consultation versions) include, inter alia:
a. Substantive issues:
A definition of pharmacy advertising as activity informing or encouraging the use of the offer in order to increase sales of assortment or services — with a catalogue of prohibited techniques (including no benefits in exchange for purchase, prohibition of comparative advertising, no messages addressed to children, prohibition of using the image of publicly known persons, scientists and persons with medical education). Thus, the draft is to repeal the current, rigorous Article 94a of the Pharmaceutical Law. In its place, it introduces a statutory definition of pharmacy advertising, which covers both informing about the offer and encouraging the purchase of assortment (medicines, supplements) or the use of services (e.g., pharmaceutical care). Therefore, this is the end of the era of a ban on everything, but with significant limitations.
Advertising becomes legal, but it is surrounded by a long list of prohibitions intended to protect the patient from manipulation. In principle, pharmacy advertising may NOT:
a) Buy loyalty: prohibition of offering any benefits (free items, points, rewards) in exchange for purchases or use of services.
b) Attack competition: prohibition of comparative advertising.
c) Use authorities: prohibition of engaging doctors, pharmacists, scientists, known persons and persons “pretending” to be medical professionals (both their image and voice).
d) Engage children: prohibition of directing advertising to persons under 18 years of age and of using their image.
e) Play on emotions: prohibition of evoking fear, suggesting deterioration of health without purchase, and exerting pressure on the patient.
f) Violate ethics: the message must comply with the law, good practices and the principles of professional ethics of the pharmacist.
- Procedural issues:
b. Tightening of sanctions (raising the upper limits of fines) while enabling the provision of information about pharmaceutical services in an objective and neutral manner, which, of course, in practice will remain a huge challenge.
c. Discontinuation of pending proceedings concerning advertising conducted on the basis of the existing provisions on the date the Act enters into force.
What draws attention is that the draft Act introduces an important element related to comparative advertising. The proposed wording of Article 94a(2)(2) of the Draft, introducing a prohibition of comparative advertising of pharmacies, raises significant concerns. The adopted construction may lead to unjustified cross-distortion of the understanding of the catalogue of acts of unfair competition.
It is worth recalling that pursuant to Article 16(1) of the Act on Combating Unfair Competition, prohibited advertising also includes messages that are:
· contrary to the law, good practices or infringing human dignity;
· misleading and capable of influencing the customer’s purchasing decision;
· exploiting fear, superstition or children’s credulity;
· concealed in the form of neutral information (so-called covert advertising);
· burdensome and interfering with privacy (e.g., through persistent solicitation or abuse of communication means).
The current wording of the Draft generates a risk of serious interpretative conflicts in the practice of law application. This results from the lack of correlation between individual provisions.
Note: Part of the catalogue of restrictions and definitions results from published draft versions and may be clarified at the stage of governmental/parliamentary work, of which we will certainly inform you. The entire draft is available at the link: Draft.
Public consultations: different communities and different voices.
The Supreme Medical Council raised that allowing advertising may increase drug consumption and intensify mail-order sales, which is undesirable from the perspective of patient safety. As context, reference was made, inter alia, to thousands of hospitalizations due to drug poisoning in recent years.
Entrepreneurs’ organizations (Lewiatan Confederation) took a different stance, supporting the direction together with a request for clarification. Lewiatan positively assessed the abolition of the general ban (compliance with the CJEU judgment), but appealed for precise definitions and consideration of broader liberalization (for example, the lack of consent to advertising of non-pharmacy outlets remains controversial). Similarly, other industry organizations expressed comparable positions.
The pharmacy self-government also presented its position, in the background expressing concerns about “marketing wars” and sales pressure.
In turn, in its opinion of 30 January 2026, the Legislative Council supported the direction of lifting the ban, emphasizing that it concerns the necessary implementation of the CJEU judgment. At the same time, the Council pointed out the need to clarify the definition of advertising, proportionality of sanctions and avoidance of inconsistency with EU law.
The current legislative status is such that the draft has not yet been promulgated in the Journal of Laws; the government schedule assumed submission to the Council of Ministers in Q4 2025, but the works have been prolonged — the draft is after consultations and the opinion of the Legislative Council and awaits further governmental/parliamentary steps.
So how to act?
What are the permissible directions for conducting pharmacy advertising in a state of legal uncertainty:
a. Informing about opening hours, location, available pharmaceutical services (e.g., medication reviews, elements of pharmaceutical care) — in an objective and neutral manner.
b. Educational and preventive communication (pro-health content), without elements of sales pressure.
And which techniques are prohibited or limited based on examples from the draft Act, but also on the basis of other existing provisions concerning the protection of competition and consumers:
a. Prohibition of offering benefits in exchange for purchase (discount, free item, coupons) with regard to medicines and other assortment available in the pharmacy (which should be verified due to the variability of the draft);
b. Prohibition of comparative advertising (“cheapest”, “better than X”).
c. Prohibition of directing messages to children and using their image/voice.
d. Prohibition of using the image and voice of publicly known persons, scientists and persons with medical education (including actors playing medical professionals).
e. Prohibition of suggesting a health threat in the absence of purchase (“frightening” the patient).
f. Prohibition of misleading, exerting pressure, violating professional secrecy and principles of ethics.
The existing provisions have been considered inconsistent with EU law, and there are no new provisions yet. So how to conduct advertising during the transitional period? Here is a checklist for pharmacies for the “transitional period”:
- Communication audit — it is worth resigning from messages that may be considered sales pressure or comparative advertising; it is advisable to focus on neutral information and education.
- Online channels — a good solution is to prepare a publication policy (website, social media, newsletter) compliant with the requirements of neutrality and objectivity, which will also be consistent with the guidelines of the CJEU judgment.
- Pharmaceutical services — we also recommend organizing the offer and description of services so that the messages are factual, without sales-oriented “call-to-action”.
- Cooperation with manufacturers — it is advisable to ensure separation of roles and responsibilities in campaigns, as we have different advertising regimes: different for medicinal products, different for medical devices, different for dietary supplements.
- Internal procedures — training for staff and checklists for approval of materials in the spirit of compliance, taking into account the principles of professional ethics of the pharmacist, are recommended.
Summary
The CJEU, in its judgment of 19 June 2025, unequivocally ruled that the general ban on pharmacy advertising in force in Poland is contrary to EU law, which opened the way to the necessary amendment of the provisions. The processed draft (UD291) assumes the abolition of the existing ban and the introduction of strictly regulated frameworks for conducting promotional activities, while at the same time providing for stricter financial sanctions and precise limitations on advertising techniques. Although the Legislative Council supported the direction of changes, it indicated the need to clarify key definitions and ensure greater proportionality of the envisaged penalties. The upcoming reconciliation conference suggests that the final shape of the regulation may still evolve, which requires market participants to exercise particular vigilance and flexibility in planning communication strategies.
In view of these dynamic legislative changes, our Law Firm offers full support in auditing and reviewing advertising projects, ensuring their compliance both with the current case law and with the forthcoming statutory requirements. We are ready to comprehensively assess promotional activities conducted directly by pharmacies, as well as by entities cooperating with them, including IT solution providers and business partners. Our advisory services include verification of the admissibility of forms of communication and substantive support in the process of adapting operational models to new legal standards, which allows minimizing the risk of exposure to severe sanctions while fully utilizing the emerging market opportunities.
We invite you to contact us: office@ajlaw.pl