Until last year, the system of language legislation, whether someone likes it or not, had its own logic and generally corresponded to the constitutional status of the Latvian language — that is, the status of the state language.
This means that clear responsibilities for ensuring Latvian as the state language were imposed on state and municipal institutions and enterprises, as well as on those legal and natural persons providing various services to the population. Naturally, this also applied to record-keeping and information provision. Such a system has developed over the last three decades.
In the framework of official duties
When it comes to natural persons, the state could control their use of the Latvian language while performing official duties.
In simple terms, if you are, for example, a hairdresser, you are obliged to respond in Latvian if a client addresses you in Latvian. However, if you yourself go to a hairdresser, then, of course, no one can force you, as a private individual, to communicate with the hairdresser in any particular language — you, as a client, choose the language of communication. And the state does not interfere in the communication between the client and the service provider.
This also applies to communication between the buyer and the seller. The main point is that the buyer can, if desired, receive information and services in the state language. Communication in other languages is not regulated, and this is decided by the sellers and the buyers themselves.
Let us remind you that after 2022, politicians began to tighten the already not liberal language policy. In fact, employers, with rare exceptions, were prohibited from even asking (let alone demanding) whether a potential employee speaks Russian or any other foreign language.
However, even before last year, the principle of controlling the language of communication during the performance of official duties remained if those duties required knowledge of Latvian — primarily in communication with clients (visitors).
The patient is ordered…
Last year, a fundamental shift occurred in this system of language legislation.
As is known, patients seeking medical assistance were imposed the obligation… either to speak Latvian or, if they do not speak Latvian and the treating person refuses to speak, for example, in Russian, to provide a translator. But still, despite the absurdity of the amendments, both the patient and the doctor retain the right, by agreement, to choose a convenient language for communication.
And just last week, the Saeima's Economic Commission made a “sensation.” It was in this commission that an amendment was submitted by the deputy from the National Alliance, Nauris Puntulis. The deputy took advantage of the fact that the law on consumer rights protection is “open” and proposed to supplement this law with a separate section “Language of Communication.”
And although the law was opened to bring its articles in line with EU directives on consumer rights protection, Puntulis decided to supplement this law with language norms.
Russian is not allowed, Ukrainian is allowed
The first part of the amendment states that “communication between the consumer and the seller or service provider — the provision, servicing of information, and conclusion of the contract — is carried out in the state language.”
Additionally, Puntulis proposes to establish in the law that consumers in Latvia have the right to receive services in the Latvian language.
The proposal stipulates that the service provider ensures that “documents prepared for providing services, used interfaces of digital content, as well as the possibility of choosing a language in such technical solutions as applications, websites, call centers, or in-person service infrastructure are in the Latvian language or, if the client agrees and the seller or service provider can provide it, in the official language of a EU member state or candidate country.”
For reference: as of the beginning of 2026, there are 9 candidate countries for EU membership — Albania, Bosnia and Herzegovina, Georgia, Moldova, North Macedonia, Serbia, Turkey, Ukraine, and Montenegro.
“The rights of the consumer are violated if the consumer does not receive information about the service or product in the state language,” the amendment by Puntulis stipulates.
Like Uzbeks in France
Puntulis's party mate at the discussion of the amendments was deputy Janis Vitenbergs. According to Vitenbergs, the amendment aims to guarantee every consumer the opportunity to receive information and service in Latvian. At the same time, it grants service providers and sellers — primarily young people who, for example, do not speak Russian — the right not to respond in Russian.
Independent deputy Skaidrīte Abama inquired how this would look in practice: “So a buyer, for example, in ‘Maxima’ will not be able to speak Russian at the checkout? And what then?”
“Yes, they simply will not be serviced in Russian,” Janis Vitenbergs cut in, adding that it is unlikely that an Uzbek in France will be serviced in Uzbek.
“Our compatriots in England, even at an advanced age, learn English so that they can receive service,” explained deputy Vitenbergs.
How to control and punish?
It should be noted that representatives of the Ministry of Economics, the Consumer Rights Protection Center, and parliamentary lawyers have repeatedly emphasized that all legislation in the field of protecting the state language has already been adopted in Latvia, and there is no need to introduce any specific language norm into all other laws, especially considering that if the amendment prohibits something, the question immediately arises: who will control it?
And another question: what administrative responsibility will be provided for this?
Surprisingly, but fact: this amendment began to be defended by representatives of the financial association, that is, banks. The logic is this: since banks have already been forced not to communicate with clients in Russian, including removing information in Russian from ATMs, then let other service sectors also limit the use of Russian!
Easier not to buy
If this amendment is adopted in this wording, then, for example, a seller in a store or a cashier in a supermarket will not be able to communicate with a buyer in Russian, even if they speak that language or even if it is their native language.
Imagine a situation where a buyer comes to a car dealership to buy a car, that is, to leave tens of thousands of euros, but the consultant in the dealership cannot even respond to the buyer in Russian if they want to receive information about the car in Russian, etc.
Absurd, you might say? And what does the state care about the communication in private between clients and service providers if the right to receive information in Latvian is guaranteed?
And deputies vote “for”!
Janis Vitenbergs concluded the discussion in the commission by stating that all arguments of the opponents of this amendment do not hold water. As for administrative responsibility, it can easily be provided by supplementing the relevant administrative law. Interestingly: will only the seller who dared to respond in Russian be punished, or will the buyer be punished too?
The head of the Saeima's Economic Commission, Kaspars Briškens (“Progressives”), expressed the opinion that if deputies support Puntulis's amendment in the second reading, it will need to be refined and aligned with language norms in other laws by the third reading.
As a result, the amendment was supported by the commission in the second reading with 6 votes “for,” 2 “against,” and 2 abstentions. There will still be a vote on this amendment at the plenary session of the Saeima, followed by discussion in the third (final) reading.
