The new role of contracts in authority proceedings
Finnish authorities are taking centre stage as regulatory disputes increase across multiple sectors. While the main concern of these processes remains the supervision of regulatory compliance, authorities are currently paying particular attention to agreements of the supervised as evidence of compliance or non-compliance. What was once an instrument that mainly concerned the contracting parties has now become a key element in regulatory dispute resolution.
As concluded in our article of 20 November 2025, regulatory disputes and supervisory activities by authorities are on the rise – a trend that motivates and requires companies to invest heavily in their compliance functions. However, strict compliance with applicable regulations is not the only factor in ensuring that unwanted attention from supervisory authorities is prevented. Through our work, we have observed that agreements – traditionally the most common source of commercial disputes between parties – now play a surprisingly important role in supervisory proceedings. Well-drafted agreements can demonstrate compliance intent and strong governance frameworks. Conversely, poorly structured agreements can, at worst, lead to more severe sanctions from authorities.
What are the authorities interested in when it comes to agreements?
Through our work, we have observed that authorities are concentrating on several key areas:
Data processing agreements:
While DPA templates provide a useful starting point, they are insufficient as standalone solutions. The processor’s tasks must be described in detail and tailored to the specific characteristics of each contractual relationship. We have observed that generic templates often fail to address the nuanced requirements of specific business relationships.
Audit and supervision of service providers:
The Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority has recently emphasised that special attention must be paid to the content of service provider agreements. This reflects a broader trend where authorities expect organisations to demonstrate proactive risk management through contractual mechanisms rather than reactive monitoring. Therefore, adequacy in practice and/or mere supervision may not be enough if the contractual framework is weak.
Marketing practices:
The Finnish Competition and Consumer Authority’s supervision of marketing and influencer marketing has intensified, requiring agreements to define responsibilities with greater precision. This includes clear delineation of who bears responsibility for ensuring advertising claims are substantiated and compliant with consumer protection laws.
Interestingly, we have noticed that authorities are not merely checking for the presence of compliance clauses but are evaluating their practical enforceability and whether they reflect genuine risk assessment rather than boilerplate language.
Four things to keep in mind while drafting agreements in order to prevent/handle disputes with authorities
Drawing from our experience in regulatory matters, we recommend focusing on four key areas when drafting agreements with regulatory implications:
- Information obligations:
Service providers’ obligations to inform clients about regulatory developments and potential issues should be precisely defined. This includes specifying timing, scope of information, and escalation procedures. - Engagement protocols:
What type of cooperation is necessary during regulatory proceedings, including commenting opportunities and representation arrangements, and how these are carried out. - Cost allocation:
The allocation of costs arising from regulatory processes could be agreed upon in advance. This includes investigation costs, remediation expenses, and potential sanctions. Clear cost allocation prevents disputes that could complicate regulatory responses and demonstrates mature risk management. - Clear service description:
Services should be defined with precision, including, where applicable, specific deliverables, performance standards and quality benchmarks. Ambiguous service descriptions create uncertainty that can complicate both contractual performance and regulatory compliance assessments.
Looking ahead
The regulatory landscape continues to evolve rapidly, requiring companies to maintain agile contractual practices. Organisations that proactively invest in clear contractual frameworks are better positioned to navigate regulatory scrutiny and minimise associated risks. When regulatory disputes do arise, early legal engagement remains crucial for optimal outcomes.
Our team is happy to discuss any questions you may have regarding the regulatory landscape and the contractual frameworks.
Contact authors
