The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK), Tomasz Chróstny, initiated two proceedings against Holiday Park & Resort Sp. z o.o. on October 28, 2026. The antimonopoly authorities charge the resort operator with applying practices that infringe collective consumer interests and using prohibited contractual provisions. The main objective of the control is to verify the method of price presentation in the online booking process and regulatory provisions that may grant the business excessive freedom in unilaterally modifying the terms of already concluded contracts.

Hiding the Real Cost of the Stay

UOKiK's accusations focus on the mechanism of so-called drip pricing, a situation in which a consumer sees an attractive unit rate, but only learns about subsequent mandatory payments while progressing through the stages of the booking process. A proper calculation of costs for a typical family of three for seven nights revealed that the displayed initial price could be several times lower than the final bill. The booking system automatically calculated the price for nine people, artificially lowering the visible unit rate, even though guests were booking the facility for a smaller number of people.

An example illustrating the problem is a cabin booking for three people for seven nights. At the first stage, the user saw a rate of 88.78 PLN per person per night. The next stage already showed a price of 99.30 PLN per person per night, while the system still assumed a nine-person occupancy. Mandatory fees that were not fully disclosed at the start were automatically added to the bill. These included, among others, 249.99 PLN for cabin preparation and 413 PLN for the garden (59 PLN per day). Although the total price visible in the system rose to 6,255.99 PLN, the visual interface emphasized the value of 90.30 PLN, placing it in a larger font and highlighting it in color above the total sum.

Fees Invisible at the Time of Booking

A key problem pointed out by the Office is the lack of information about certain costs at the stage of finalizing the reservation. The amount labeled “total to pay” did not include an 899 PLN deposit and an operational fee of 4.99 PLN per person per day. Information about these items was recorded in a smaller and lighter font, making them harder to notice. Additionally, charges for consumed electricity, gas, heating, water, and sewage were calculated upon check-out. According to the settlements provided to the office, for stays lasting five or six days, utility costs ranged from 100 to over 200 PLN. The total value of hidden fees (deposit, operational fees, utilities) could exceed 1,000 PLN, and in some cases constitute more than half of the total cost of the stay.

The mandatory and paid service of preparing the facility before the stay was sometimes presented in the form as a selected “enhancement,” although according to the regulations, it was a mandatory item. This method of data presentation prevents consumers from reliably comparing the offer with competitors' proposals and assessing the actual budget needed for the trip.

Changing Conditions After Making a Reservation

The second of the initiated proceedings concerns regulatory provisions allowing the company to change contract terms. Previous versions of the regulations stated that new rules could take effect after their publication and the expiration of 14 days, without specifying a concrete reason. The current document allows for the modification of terms of already made reservations in the case of an “important reason.” The catalog of these reasons is not closed – the regulation uses the phrase “in particular,” listing, among others, changes in the scope of services, counteracting abuses, removing inaccuracies, or improving privacy protection. The President of UOKiK is investigating whether such broad and imprecise criteria do not give the business excessive freedom to unilaterally change concluded contracts, which would violate the consumer's right to stability of contract terms.

Possible Legal Consequences

In the event that the accusations are confirmed, the President of UOKiK may apply a wide range of sanctions. The authority may order the cessation of improper practices and declare the questioned regulatory provisions as prohibited. A financial penalty of up to 10 percent of annual turnover for each infringed practice may be imposed on the business. The case will be examined in the course of two separate proceedings, which underscores the complexity of the consumer law violations identified by the office.