Founded in 1999, Allegro is today one of the most valuable companies on the Warsaw Stock Exchange (WSE), worth over PLN 30 billion (EUR 6.6 billion). It has, in a sense, become synonymous with Poland’s e-commerce market, accounting for roughly one-third of its value, with GMV (gross merchandise value) exceeding PLN 60 billion (EUR 13.2 billion) in 2024. After three quarters of 2025, GMV rose 9% year-on-year to nearly PLN 50 billion (EUR 11 billion).
Over the years, the domestic marketplace has not only successfully fended off attempts by global giants such as eBay to expand in Poland but has actually strengthened its position. This, combined with intense competition from deep-pocketed players like Amazon, AliExpress, or Temu, effectively discouraged others.
Singapore’s Shopee, which stormed into the Polish market, withdrew just as quickly. Comarch, a local IT heavyweight, exited even faster with its platform Wszystko.pl. The challenge has so far been taken up with some success by domestic platform Erli, which has now struck a move aimed at challenging Allegro’s dominance.
Erli: Everyone loses except the dominant player
Allegro boasts more than 15 million active buyers (including 7 million in the Smart! program), who spend on average PLN 4,300 (EUR 950) per year; 164,000 active sellers offering over 80 million products; and around 70,000 delivery points. This scale secures Allegro’s position as Poland’s e-commerce leader.
On December 19, Erli filed a lawsuit accusing Allegro of, among other things, abusing its dominant position and engaging in unfair competition. The filing was only announced on February 2, after ensuring Allegro received the notice, so the competitor would not learn about it through the media. The market reacted calmly; Allegro’s stock even rose nearly 2% that day.
“We do not consent to artificially inflated prices or actions that harm consumers, thousands of Polish entrepreneurs running online stores, or the credibility of the entire e-commerce sector. Someone has to call out unfair practices that aim for monopoly,” says Adam Ciesielczyk, CEO and founder of Erli.
The key allegation concerns Allegro allegedly forcing sellers to offer the lowest price on its platform, lower than on any other channel, including their own online stores. Allegro conditions the promotion of a seller’s offers on compliance with this rule. Commission fees, due to the platform’s reach and sales potential, are often higher on Allegro than on other emerging platforms.
“In this way, everyone loses except the dominant player. A seller could earn more by selling cheaper elsewhere with lower costs. But raising prices in their own store drives traffic to Allegro, where the transaction incurs a high commission. Buyers lose the chance to purchase at a lower price. The only winner is Allegro, which further strengthens its dominant position and profits from restricting competition,” Mr. Ciesielczyk argues.
Not just about pricing
Erli’s founder accuses Allegro not only of imposing pricing rules but also of attempting last year to “appropriate product listing content” created by producers or sellers, while accusing competing platforms – including Erli – of stealing descriptions and images.
“Allegro wants to prevent sellers from selling cheaply – whether by forcing price increases, prohibiting content duplication across platforms, or restricting API access. This is unfair to all market participants: to buyers, to thousands of Polish entrepreneurs, and to the industry’s credibility. Allegro is acting unlawfully and unfairly, and this is not the first time. Strength and a number one position are meant to set high standards, not to abuse them,” Mr. Ciesielczyk says.
Allegro: Retaliatory, unfounded actions
Allegro strongly rejects Erli’s claims. It insists it does not impose pricing policies on partners, who may freely set prices across channels. Allegro asserts this does not affect how offers are ranked or promoted on its platform.
“The Erli lawsuit concerns two issues: the Allegro Ceny program and advertising of Allegro offers outside our platform, for example on Google. These are benefits funded by Allegro. Allegro Ceny is a program in which Allegro subsidizes product price reductions to make offers more attractive to customers. We do not want to subsidize partners whose prices are clearly uncompetitive relative to the market,” explains Marcin Gruszka, Allegro spokesperson.
He adds that the company is involved in a broader legal dispute with Erli over unlawful API use, such as copying listings and content from Allegro’s catalog, and sees the lawsuit as retaliatory.
“We do not agree with Erli’s unfounded, one-sided narrative. They portray Allegro as restricting price competitiveness, whereas the lawsuit concerns only a small part of our partner cooperation. Nobody can reasonably complain that Allegro wants to subsidize partners offering competitive prices. It’s voluntary, and it helps generate maximum sales and best prices for millions of consumers,” Gruszka says.
XYZ: You’ve been involved in Poland’s e-commerce market almost since Allegro’s inception and built a company serving thousands of online stores. From your experience, does Erli have grounds for accusing Allegro of abusing its monopoly to enforce lowest prices?
Paweł Fornalski, co-founder of IAI Group: Erli’s claims are entirely justified. Sellers face very high commission fees on Allegro. Although these average around 12–15%, in practice the final cost can reach up to 30% in the most popular categories. To stand out, sellers must spend additionally on platform advertising.
Without going into details, I’d add further points to the list of allegations. Still, many sellers admit they have no alternative, as survival without Allegro is difficult. I believe Allegro abuses its dominant position, operating in ways inconsistent with free competition principles. I highlighted not only the promotion issue raised by Erli but also the “Allegro Ceny” mechanism. Few understand it, and it is disadvantageous for sellers also running their own stores.
Why?
Allegro initially charges a high commission. Then, with the seller’s consent, it may reduce it so the product price is lower. On Google Shopping, where price matters, the seller competes against their own Allegro offer. Since the Allegro price is lower, traffic naturally flows there. Consequently, sellers fund their own competition by paying higher commissions.
Also noteworthy are free deliveries via Smart!. Initially, Allegro bore this cost to attract customers, but over time it increasingly shifted it to sellers. Controversies arose, including over allegedly favorable handling of consumer complaints. Increasingly, sellers report attempts by customers – sometimes using AI-generated images of allegedly damaged products – to demand refunds.
Could Erli’s lawsuit prompt market changes?
I believe it already is. For years, when I ran IAI [developer of IdoSell software for online stores], we filed complaints about certain Allegro practices. Regulators seemed unaware of the company’s influence on retail sales in Poland.
Allegro deserves credit for developing Poland’s e-commerce and paying taxes – unlike Amazon, which pays relatively little in Europe. This wins it sympathy from some decision-makers. But compared to other Polish companies, this argument loses weight. Changes are necessary, as Allegro’s activities harm market competitiveness long-term. History shows monopolistic abuse leads to broader failure. Since Rockefeller, it’s clear dominance cannot justify price dictation – hence the first U.S. antitrust office. It’s time Polish institutions take this seriously.
Any examples?
Booking once forbade hotels from offering lower prices elsewhere. After a lawsuit in France, it voluntarily abandoned this practice. Prices are now “liberated,” and some platforms, like Profitroom, allow hotels to display prices across all channels. Another case involved Spotify versus Apple, where Apple demanded 30% commission; Spotify raised prices for Apple users globally, prompting EU support, and Apple backed down. Imagine Apple enforcing prices in the App Store – consumers would lose out.
Allegro, in a way, like Biedronka supermarkets
An analyst observing Poland’s e-commerce market (who requested anonymity) notes that in disputes like this, the truth usually lies somewhere in the middle. Both sides have points.
Biedronka is Poland’s dominant grocery store chain. Biedronka (which means “ladybug” in Polish, hence the ladybug logo) is a discount supermarket chain owned by the Portuguese retail giant Jerónimo Martins. It has over 3,400 stores across Poland, so you’ll find Biedronkas everywhere – in cities, towns, villages. Often multiple stores within walking distance of each other.
“Allegro certainly leverages its advantage, but Erli is acting in its own interest. Brutally, this is a free market. Sellers are on Allegro because of reach and customer access,” the expert says.
He compares it to suppliers’ relations with retail chains like Biedronka. Due to scale, concessions are necessary. Even if a brand withdraws products, they often return.
“Would we prefer Amazon or AliExpress dominating Poland, as in other countries? Their practices are not kinder to sellers, and complaints would go to the U.S. or China. Allegro leverages a position it earned over years, and being public means shareholders expect margin improvement. Losing sellers would likely shift its strategy,” the analyst concludes.
PLN 206 million fine from watchdog
Allegro increasingly faces scrutiny. In December 2022, the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) fined Allegro about PLN 206 million (EUR 45 million) for abusing its dominant position in online marketplace services.
This followed an antitrust investigation started in December 2019, concerning Allegro’s use of collected information to favor direct sales (1P, “official Allegro store”) over third-party offers (3P) by brand owners and independent entrepreneurs.
Allegro argued it lacked dominance, did not favor its own offers (which accounted for only 1% of GMV), and appealed in February 2023, submitting additional explanations a year later. No first-instance court verdict has yet been delivered. UOKiK fines often lead to multi-year proceedings if contested.
I feel many brand owners prefer public disputes over seeking solutions to business challenges. Given UOKiK’s activity, this resembles business populism rather than systematic product improvement. Amazon and eBay never publicized their losses to Allegro.
Just as Shein and Sinsay built mobile e-commerce fashion power, Allegro has invested heavily in customer acquisition for over a decade. Channel costs are measurable; any informed seller can calculate profitability and growth. This is like budgeting for a premium mall store instead of a suburban location.
Ultimately, the customer chooses where to buy. Convenience carries a premium.
We live in times where innovation can disrupt even giants like Allegro. Erli has achieved remarkable growth in a short period, but the category is tough, and consumer habits evolve fast.
Delivery options dispute
UOKiK also investigated Allegro in spring 2025 over how it presents delivery options, after reports it favored Allegro Delivery at checkout.
An example was replacing a selected InPost locker with the nearest Allegro machine. InPost fined the partner PLN 98.7 million (EUR 21.7 million); Allegro disputes this, and arbitration will decide in 2026.
Unexpectedly, on January 28, 2026, the Warsaw District Court issued a provisional injunction from the Consumers Forum Foundation, requiring Allegro to display the full list of seller-offered delivery methods without preference. Allegro considers this unjustified and seeks reversal.
Controversial Terms of Service Change
Allegro also recently updated its API rules, which give sellers access to listings, stock, pricing, product details, orders, payments, and shipping information – enabling automated sales management.
Allegro reserved the right to limit API access and impose PLN 50,000 (EUR 11,000) fines per violation. Experts say the goal was mainly to limit sellers’ ability to launch on competing platforms. Allegro emphasized security and abuse prevention.
The Allegro-Erli flashpoint
Erli, Allegro’s main domestic competitor aside from marketplaces like Empik, launched in 2020. By 2024, it had PLN 1.2 billion (EUR 264 million) GMV and PLN 171.7 million (EUR 38 million) revenue with positive EBITDA, achieved through over PLN 500 million (EUR 110 million) investment, including Mr. Ciesielczyk’s own funds.
In 2025, Erli targeted PLN 2 billion (EUR 440 million) GMV. Growth remains strong.
“At first, Allegro largely ignored us, as they do with many new entrants. In 2023, we reached scale and growth that drew attention. Allegro launched the ‘Lowest Price Guarantee’ program directly addressing lower prices offered by us. The mechanism effectively subsidized selected product discounts,” says Mr. Ciesielczyk.
He claims his platform still offered lower prices, so Allegro no longer included it in the program. Sellers reported Allegro representatives warning them about consequences of selling on Erli — loss of discounts, program access, and visibility.
“These were informal actions, leaving no paper trail. Many sellers fear formal complaints due to dependence on Allegro,” Mr. Ciesielczyk notes.
Signals and evidence
Erli filed suit in December 2025 after obtaining verifiable proof of violations.
“Timing matters. December–January is peak season. We delayed public escalation to let sellers operate calmly. Now we see no reason to wait. We expect further pressure attempts, reinforcing the need for clear legal resolution,” he says.
Erli seeks no damages – its goal is stopping unfair practices and systemic change.
“We hope state authorities and an independent court uphold fair competition. Long-term, this will reduce sellers’ costs and, in turn, consumer prices. That’s the key effect,” Ciesielczyk emphasizes.
Bartosz Grabowski, co-founder of GCG Partners, stresses the real issue is a platform’s role in the ecosystem, not who sets prices. Allegro and Erli succeed by standardizing the shopping experience, giving customers predictability and control.
“Monitoring off-platform prices is a dead end if it doesn’t strengthen the value promise. Price parity enforcement without reducing selling costs or providing value – logistics, tech, data -frustrates sellers and pushes them to diversify channels. It doesn’t build platform loyalty,” he says.
Natalia Wardejn, retail expert formerly at Zalando, adds: “The marketplace is polarizing. Some platforms compete on price and scale, others on experience, logistics, and recommendation. Competition in Poland is healthy, forcing clearer strategies on both sides.”
More potential allegations
Erli focuses on the current lawsuit but may pursue further formal actions.
“We focused on practices directly affecting prices and competition. We also observe restricted REST API access, limiting sellers’ ability to manage listings and copy content they own. This mainly affects smaller and mid-sized players, hampering channel diversification,” Mr. Ciesielczyk explains.
“Dumping and cross-subsidization mechanisms also raise concerns. Aggressive price support in one channel can drive out competitors and freeze alternative distribution models,” he adds.
- Alleged abuse of dominance: Allegro leads Poland’s e-commerce, with GMV exceeding PLN 60 billion (EUR 13.2 billion), 15 million active users, 80 million offers, and 164,000 active sellers. Erli’s lawsuit focuses on blocking sellers from offering lower prices elsewhere. “We do not consent to artificially inflated prices harming consumers, entrepreneurs, or industry credibility,” says Mr. Ciesielczyk.
- Firm response: Allegro rejects Erli’s claims. Offering lower prices elsewhere does not affect offer placement. The lawsuit is seen as retaliatory. “Erli portrays Allegro as limiting price competitiveness, but the suit concerns a small slice of partner cooperation,” says spokesperson Gruszka.
- Expert supports need for change: Paweł Fornalski of IAI considers Erli’s claim valid, noting Allegro’s practices harm long-term competitiveness. He cites Booking’s voluntary change after a lawsuit as a precedent for effective pressure.
For transparency: the RiO fund, owned by Rafał Brzoska, CEO and shareholder of InPost, is an investor in XYZ.
