Poland’s New Digital Law: Protection or Control?A landmark proposal aims to clean up the Polish internet, but critics warn of overreach.

The Polish government has approved a major amendment to the Act on the Provision of Electronic Services, a legal framework that will implement the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA) domestically.

It sounds technical, but the implications are anything but. From parents trying to keep their children safe online, to journalists, creators, and e-commerce owners. Everyone will feel its effects. The new law promises faster action against illegal content and better protection for users. Yet, at the same time, it raises questions about freedom of speech, proportionality, and the fine line between moderation and censorship.

What’s happening – in a nutshell

The amendment gives Polish authorities and online platforms a legal, fast-track procedure to block illegal content (like human trafficking, identity theft, child exploitation, and online fraud). It also creates a formal appeals process for users whose posts are removed and divides oversight among three institutions:

• UKE – Office of Electronic Communications (Digital Services Coordinator)
• UOKiK – Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (for e-commerce platforms)
• KRRiT – National Broadcasting Council (for video-sharing platforms)

In short: it’s the Polish “translation” of the EU’s DSA – setting up national rules, regulators, and timelines.

The heart of the reform – and why it’s controversial

Fast-track takedown orders : Until now, platforms themselves decided what to remove. Under the new law, UKE or KRRiT could issue administrative orders to block specific illegal content – and providers must comply “without undue delay.”

That speed is both a strength and a risk. When a live stream of a child abuse incident or a pirated football match appears, hours matter. But when speech is political or borderline controversial, that same speed can feel like a guillotine.

The “safety valve” – restoring content: If a platform wrongly removes content, the coordinator (UKE/KRRiT) can order its restoration. In theory, this protects free speech. In practice, it depends on how fast and transparently authorities act – and whether they have the staff and tools to review thousands of cases.

Clearer user rights: Users will have a defined appeals path: first to the platform, then – if unsatisfied – to a national authority. This mirrors the DSA’s logic of layered dispute resolution and “trusted flaggers.”

Good news: more structure, less chaos:

Bad news: administrative clocks tick faster than human ones – your appeal might succeed only after the damage is done (lost reach, revenue, or relevance).

Who watches the platforms

Three regulators will share oversight. UKE coordinates Poland’s entire DSA framework, UOKiK handles consumer cases, and KRRiT focuses on video platforms. The real challenge? Whether they’ll have enough funding, expertise, and tech to enforce these rules effectively.

Why lawyers and watchdogs say “be careful”

Poland’s Ombudsman, Marcin Wiącek, warns that administrative decisions on matters touching freedom of speech are inherently risky. He worries about limited participation of the content creator in proceedings and that administrative courts may not be equipped to weigh human-rights impacts.

He stops short of calling it censorship, but notes the potential for “disproportionate effects and abuse.”

The bigger picture – what’s European, what’s Polish

This isn’t Poland inventing something new out of thin air. The Digital Services Act already requires each EU member state to establish national procedures for handling illegal content (Article 9). These procedures can be judicial or administrative. Poland is choosing the administrative path – faster, but more sensitive politically.

So the real debate isn’t whether to act, but how to act without crossing the line between efficiency and overreach.

The good side – why many experts welcome the move

• Finally, a legal “STOP button.” When child exploitation, human trafficking, or large-scale fraud appear online, minutes count. This law provides a legitimate tool for rapid response.
• Clarity and accountability. Users know where to complain, platforms know what to report, and regulators know who’s responsible.
• More transparency and safer design. Platforms will have to publish reports on moderation, limit profiling, adapt interfaces for minors, and verify merchants – all core DSA principles.

The dark side – what could go wrong

• Speed vs. proportionality. Instant takedowns work great for crime prevention but can crush legitimate speech before anyone blinks.
• Under-resourced regulators. Without proper staffing and funding, UKE or KRRiT could become bottlenecks – or rubber-stamp offices.
• Vague definitions. The concept of “illegal content” covers a wide range – from criminal material to alleged defamation or IP violations. Without precision, platforms may over-moderate to stay safe.

The bottom line

Poland’s DSA implementation is a turning point for the country’s digital ecosystem. It promises safer, more transparent online spaces – but also gives the state unprecedented influence over what stays up or comes down.

For ordinary users, it could mean less exposure to harmful content. For creators, it’s both protection and pressure. For regulators, it’s the biggest test yet of whether a democracy can regulate the internet without stifling it.

The bill now moves to Parliament – where its final shape will show whether Poland leans toward safety with freedom or control in disguise.