Consumer Protection / Conduct in European Union

Key dates

2026-07-23

EBA launches consultations on draft ITS on depositor information, ITS on information exchange, RTS on DGS payouts of client funds deposits, and Guidelines on investment of available financial means under DGSD3

2026-09-21 Deadline

Registration deadline (12:00 CEST) for public hearing on all four regulatory products

2026-09-24

Public hearing on the four DGSD3-related regulatory products (10:00–13:00 CEST)

2026-10-23 Deadline

Deadline for submission of comments to the four consultation papers

Suggested considerations

• Compliance teams at EU credit institutions should consider reviewing existing depositor information sheets, account-opening documentation and ongoing communications to assess alignment with the emerging harmonised formats and content envisaged by the draft ITS on depositor information, particularly for merger and failure scenarios.
• DGSs and banks may wish to map current data flows and reporting processes for covered deposits, available financial means and bank failure events against the proposed ITS on information exchange, to identify gaps in data granularity, timeliness, and standardisation that could require system and process changes.
• Firms that hold client funds in pooled or intermediary deposit accounts (such as investment firms or payment institutions) should consider analysing how client identification and segregation data are captured and shared with DGSs, in light of the draft RTS on client funds that aim to ensure accurate and timely reimbursement of underlying clients and avoidance of duplicate payouts.
• DGS operators and finance teams may wish to review investment policies, risk limits, eligible instruments and liquidity management frameworks for DGS financial means, to anticipate adjustments needed to comply with the forthcoming Guidelines on diversification, low risk and liquidity, including readiness to support resolution financing within the DGSD3 mandate.
• All affected stakeholders should consider preparing internal positions and impact assessments and submit consultation responses to the EBA by the stated deadline, highlighting operational challenges, data availability issues, and any potential conflicts with existing national frameworks for depositor protection and crisis management.
• Risk and treasury functions in banks may wish to engage with DGSs and supervisors to understand how enhanced reporting on covered deposits and DGS financial means under the ITS on information exchange could affect crisis-preparedness expectations, stress-testing assumptions and disclosure practices.
• Legal and regulatory affairs teams should consider monitoring the progression of these four draft instruments alongside the remaining eight technical standards and guidelines mandated by DGSD3, to plan for a coordinated implementation programme once final texts and application dates are confirmed.

What changed

The publication launches consultations on four draft regulatory products mandated by DGSD3: (i) Implementing Technical Standards on depositor information, which define harmonised content and format for depositor information sheets at account opening and on a regular basis, and specify communication requirements in special situations such as bank mergers or failures; (ii) Implementing Technical Standards on information exchange between credit institutions, Deposit Guarantee Schemes (DGSs) and other relevant authorities, introducing standardised procedures, templates and minimum information...

Key dates

2022

- ESMA’s original peer review identified shortcomings in the supervision of cross-border activities and issued recommendations to strengthen authorisation, supervision, cooperation, and enforcement

September 2025

- ESMA’s 2026 work programme says the follow-up on the peer review of cross-border provision activities of investment firms was expected to be launched around this time

20 July 2026

- ESMA published the follow-up report on the supervision of cross-border activities of investment firms

TBD (est. 2028)

- ESMA indicated in the earlier peer review context that it expected to carry out a follow-up assessment in two years to review improvements, which aligns with a later-stage review cycle

Suggested considerations

• Review cross-border business plans for all passported investment services and ensure they are supported by clear governance, staffing, systems, and client-service arrangements.
• Map all outbound cross-border activities by jurisdiction, client type, product type, and distribution channel so that compliance can identify where supervisory risk is highest.
• Strengthen controls over retail cross-border activity, including marketing, suitability/appropriateness, complaints handling, and local conduct requirements in each host market.
• Prepare to provide supervisors with more granular evidence of how cross-border risks are identified, monitored, escalated, and mitigated.
• Ensure internal reporting can distinguish cross-border revenue, complaints, incidents, and enforcement exposure from domestic business lines.

What changed

• - ESMA reports that NCAs have strengthened authorisation assessments by placing greater emphasis on firms’ cross-border business plans and intentions before granting or maintaining permissions.
• NCAs are increasingly using data-driven and risk-based supervision to monitor cross-border activity and calibrate supervisory attention to the scale, nature, and complexity of the activity.
• NCAs have expanded cooperation and enforcement, including more targeted supervisory actions and reporting of enforcement cases where relevant.
• ESMA expects NCAs with significant outbound cross-border activity to ensure that their supervisory and enforcement approaches are proportionate to the level of risk and business volume.
• The report reinforces that cross-border activity should be treated as a distinct supervisory risk area, not merely as an incidental extension of domestic supervision.

Key dates

24 June 2013

– Earlier ESA Board of Appeal case law clarifies that appeals are reserved for “decisions” that produce binding legal effects and that the Board lacks jurisdiction over acts that are not such decisions, including certain complaints‑handling outcomes

21 July 2022

– In Decision BoA‑D‑2022‑01 (appeal “C” v EBA), the Board of Appeal holds that an appeal against EBA’s decision not to initiate an investigation into alleged non‑application of EU law in relation to payment accounts is inadmissible under Article 60(2) of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010

16 July 2026

– The ESAs’ Joint Board of Appeal issues the present decision dismissing, as inadmissible, an individual’s appeal against EBA’s decision not to open an investigation into a possible breach of Union law by the Finnish FIN‑FSA in relation to a bank account closure

Suggested considerations

• Review internal complaints‑handling and escalation procedures to ensure that disputes over account closures and related supervisory decisions are managed through national complaint bodies and courts, rather than assuming EBA or Board of Appeal review will be available.
• Update legal and compliance guidance notes to reflect that EBA’s decision whether to initiate a breach‑of‑Union‑law investigation is discretionary and generally not subject to appeal before the Board of Appeal, limiting external escalation avenues.
• Train front‑office, customer‑service and complaints staff to provide accurate information to customers about available redress routes, emphasising national ombudsman, national competent authority and judicial mechanisms rather than ESMA/EBA appeals.
• For groups operating across the EU, map national complaint and judicial mechanisms for account closures in each jurisdiction and integrate them into group‑wide conduct risk frameworks and customer communication templates.
• Monitor further ESA and EU court case law on which ESA acts are susceptible to appeal before the Board of Appeal, and adjust litigation and escalation strategies accordingly.

What changed

• - The decision clarifies that EBA’s decision whether or not to initiate an investigation into a possible breach or non‑application of Union law under Article 17 of Regulation (EU) No 1093/2010 is a...
• The Board of Appeal confirms that a decision not to open a Union law breach investigation does not constitute a reviewable “decision” for the purposes of Article 60(1)–(2) of the ESA Regulations and...
• The Board of Appeal confirms that individual complaints about account closures and associated supervisory handling remain primarily within the remit of national competent authorities and national...
• The decision reiterates that only certain categories of ESA acts that produce binding legal effects (for example, decisions adopted under Articles 17, 18 or 19 of the ESA Regulations, and acts within...
• The outcome aligns with prior Board of Appeal and EU court case law confirming that persons outside the specific categories listed in Article 17(2) of the ESA Regulations have no right of appeal to...

Key dates

27 February 2026

Publication of annual transparency calculations for equity and equity-like instruments

10 April 2026

Release of first 2026 TRV report and newsletter; .

15 April 2026

Public hearing on EBA-ESMA joint guidelines on suitability of management body and key function holders

20 April 2026 Deadline

Consultation deadline on regulatory standards for post-trade risk reduction services under EMIR 3

29 April 2026

Consultation on MAR Guidelines on delay in disclosure of inside information

Suggested considerations

• Review and implement transparency calculations: Adjust trading systems and disclosures for equity/equity-like instruments per 27 February 2026 publication.
• Respond to consultations: Submit feedback on suitability (by 25 May 2026), EMIR 3 (20 April), MAR delays (29 April), CCP collateral (30 April); attend 15 April hearing.
• Assess TRV risks: Conduct internal risk reviews aligning with high-risk market warnings; update policies on retail investor journeys and fund costs.[User Query]
• Update compliance programs: Incorporate MiFID II/MiFIR simplification proposals, Listing Act statement, market abuse guidelines, EMIR 3, sustainability reporting, and new Q&As.[User Query]
• Monitor enforcement: Review supervisory actions for peer benchmarks (e.g., similar to prior MFSA review).

What changed

• The newsletter highlights no immediate binding rules but flags forthcoming or proposed changes via publications:
• Trends, Risks and Vulnerabilities (TRV) Report 2026: Identifies high-risk EU financial markets, urging heightened risk monitoring.[User Query]
• Annual transparency calculations for equity and equity-like instruments: Updates pre- and post-trade transparency thresholds, published 27 February 2026.[User Query]
• Joint EBA-ESMA consultation on revised suitability assessment: Proposes updates to requirements for banks and investment firms on assessing client knowledge and needs under MiFID II.[User Query]
• ESMA proposals to simplify MiFID II/MiFIR obligations on market data: Aims to streamline reporting and data access burdens.[User Query]

Key dates

1 July 2025

- Publication of ESMA's first thematic note on ESG credentials (to be read in combination)

14 January 2026

- Publication date of the thematic note on ESG strategies (second in series)

Suggested considerations

• Review and update all non-regulatory ESG communications (marketing, websites, presentations, DDQs, PPMs) against the four principles and do's/don'ts.
• Define and clearly explain ESG integration/exclusions (e.g., processes, criteria, thresholds, portfolio impact, materiality).
• Ensure consistency across channels, substantiate claims with accessible evidence, and avoid vagueness or overstatements.
• Train compliance/marketing teams; monitor for updates as further thematic notes may follow.
• Cross-reference with first note and regulations like SFDR, Cross-Border Distribution Regulation.

What changed

• This is not a formal regulatory change but supervisory guidance reinforcing four principles for non-regulatory communications (e.g., marketing materials, websites, investor presentations, voluntary...
• Accurate: Claims must fairly represent sustainability profiles without exaggeration, falsehoods, omissions, cherry-picking, vagueness, or misleading ESG terminology/imagery.
• Accessible: Information must be easy to understand and navigate, with layered substantiation in electronic formats for retail materials.
• Substantiated: Backed by clear reasoning, facts, processes, and methodologies; disclose data limitations and comparison bases.
• Up to date: Reflect current data, with timely disclosure of material changes and analysis dates. Practical do's/don'ts include explaining ESG processes in plain language, disclosing portfolio...