The new rules on consumer suretyship: what will change as from 2026?

We refer in this respect to our article: “Suretyship under the new Book 9 of the Civil Code: a trusted safeguard, clearly and modernly defined as from 1 January 2026.”

This article focuses on a specific and practically important aspect of the reform: the protection regime for consumers who grant personal security. It complements the general discussion on suretyship and addresses situations in which individuals undertake, outside any professional activity, to secure the debt of another person.

Unless otherwise provided, the general provisions governing suretyship remain applicable.

1. As from 1 January 2026: acting as a private individual, with enhanced protection

When a person undertakes to be liable for the debt of another, this constitutes a personal security. The most common form is suretyship. In practice, this frequently arises in a family context: a parent acting as surety for a child’s loan, a partner providing security for a credit facility, or a friend offering support.

For example, your son wishes to obtain a bank loan to purchase a car. The bank requires additional security. As a parent, you decide to act as surety, not in the course of a professional activity, but as a private individual, i.e. as a consumer.

You undertake to repay the loan (or part of it) if your son fails to do so. The law qualifies this as a personal security granted by a consumer, a common situation in practice, but one that may entail significant financial risk.

Although such arrangements are familiar, the financial consequences for the surety can be substantial. For that reason, the legislator has thoroughly revised the rules on personal securities in the new Book 9 of the Civil Code.

Until now, certain protective mechanisms already existed, notably through the regime of the gratuitous suretyship. In practice, however, this framework proved to be limited and not always well suited to situations in which individuals acted as surety for personal or family-related reasons.

With the introduction of the new Book 9, the legislator has opted for a clearer regime based on the concept of the consumer.

Key principle as from 1 January 2026: a consumer may only grant a personal security in the form of a suretyship. Applied to the example above, this means that the bank may not impose on you, as a parent, a more complex personal security structure than a standard suretyship. Whatever terminology is used, the arrangement will benefit from the protection attached to suretyship.

Although such arrangements may seem familiar, the financial consequences for the surety can be significant. For that reason, the legislator has thoroughly redesigned the rules on personal securities in the new Book 9 of the Civil Code.

Until now, a protection regime already existed for persons acting as surety, notably through the concept of gratuitous suretyship (kosteloze borgtocht / cautionnement à titre gratuit). In practice, however, this regime proved to be limited and not always suited to situations where private individuals provided security for personal or family reasons.

With the new Book 9 of the Civil Code, the legislator has therefore opted for a clearer and more coherent regime, based on the concept of the consumer.

As from 1 January 2026, the guiding principle is that a consumer may no longer grant any personal security other than a suretyship.

Applied to the above example, this means that the bank may not impose on you, as a parent, a different or more complex security structure than a standard suretyship. Whatever terminology is used, you will in any event benefit from the protection attached to suretyship.

2. Why was a new regime necessary?

Prior to 2026, certain sureties already benefited from protection, in particular under the rules governing gratuitous suretyship. In practice, however, this system raised difficulties.

It was:

• strict and formalistic, making it less attractive for professional creditors;
• insufficiently aligned with economic reality, sometimes excluding precisely those individuals who required protection (such as family members of entrepreneurs).

As a result, the level of protection was fragmented and not always clear. The legislator therefore introduced a simpler and more coherent criterion: the decisive factor is no longer the nature of the suretyship, but the status of the security provider as a consumer.

3. Who is protected?

The distinction between private and professional capacity is decisive.

The new rules apply only where the security provider acts as a consumer, i.e. for private purposes and outside the scope of any professional or commercial activity.

In the example of the parent acting as surety for his son’s car loan, the protection applies because the commitment is undertaken in a private capacity and is unrelated to any professional activity.

An important nuance applies: a person who, although formally acting as a consumer, grants personal security for a company over which he or she exercises decision-making power, for example as a director or controlling shareholder does not fall within this specific protection regime.

4. The core of the reform: personal security granted by a consumer

Book 9 no longer focuses exclusively on suretyship but on the broader concept of personal security.

For consumers, however, suretyship remains the principal mechanism.

An important innovation is that a consumer may only enter into a suretyship. More complex personal security arrangements are excluded. If another form is nevertheless used, it will automatically be recharacterised as a suretyship, with the full application of the protective rules.

In case of doubt, the qualification as suretyship and the corresponding protection regime will in principle prevail.

5. A suretyship with clear limits, greater transparency and enhanced protection

A mandatory maximum amount

Every consumer suretyship must specify a clearly determined maximum amount. Open-ended or unlimited suretyships are no longer permitted.

In practical terms, the bank may not require the parent to guarantee all present and future debts of his son without limitation. The maximum amount sets the absolute ceiling of the surety’s financial exposure.

In addition, interest, contractual indemnities and costs may not, in aggregate, exceed half of the agreed maximum amount. This limitation applies in addition to the principal amount and on a per-suretyship basis.

This ensures that the consumer’s financial exposure remains proportionate and foreseeable.

Pre-contractual information duty

Before the suretyship is entered into, the creditor must provide the consumer with clear and complete information, including:

• the scope of the commitment;
• the consequences of non-payment;
• the specific risks involved, in light of the surety’s financial situation.

In the example above, the bank must clearly inform the parent of the amount covered and of the potential consequences should his son default.he loan.

Information during the term of the suretyship

Consumer protection also continues throughout the duration of the suretyship:

• the surety must receive an annual statement of the outstanding debt;
• the surety must be informed without delay in the event of payment difficulties of the principal debtor.

Protection against manifestly disproportionate commitments

The law provides for a corrective mechanism where, at the time it is entered into, the suretyship is manifestly disproportionate in light of the consumer’s income and assets.
In such a case, the commitment may be reduced. It is for the consumer to demonstrate the disproportion, which is assessed at the time the suretyship was granted.

Duration and formal requirements: modernisation without loss of protection

The law no longer imposes a statutory maximum duration. Attention should therefore be paid to the agreed term.

The formal requirements have been modernised:

• the suretyship must still be set out in a separate written document;
• however, a fully handwritten statement is no longer required.

6. Mandatory nature of the protection

Where a consumer acts as surety, the statutory rules are mandatory. Contractual provisions that reduce the level of protection are not permitted and will be deemed unwritten. Only provisions that are more favourable to the surety are allowed.

7. Suretyship between consumers

Situations may arise where two private individuals enter into a loan agreement and one of them asks a third person to act as surety. In such cases, the stricter protection regime does not apply in full.

The legislator considers that enhanced protection is primarily justified where the creditor acts in a professional capacity (such as a bank or a landlord). Where both the creditor and the surety are consumers, only certain core rules apply: a clearly determined maximum amount remains mandatory, the surety may not be bound by a commitment that is manifestly disproportionate to his or her financial situation and the heirs of the surety are liable only up to the value of the net assets they inherit.

Outside these core principles, consumers enjoy greater contractual freedom: the stricter formal requirements and extensive information duties applicable to professional creditors do not apply.

8. Practical points of attention

The new regime provides greater clarity and legal certainty for consumers acting as surety. Nevertheless, suretyship remains a significant financial commitment.

Those who are already acting as surety would be well advised to review existing arrangements in light of the new rules. Those considering acting as surety in the future should pay particular attention to:

• the maximum amount;
• the duration of the commitment;
• the information provided prior to signature.

A well-informed surety is better protected and less likely to face unexpected consequences.

---

Andersen in Belgium is ready to assist you in analysing and adjusting existing suretyships and in drafting new contracts in light of the new legal framework.
For other innovations introduced by Book 9, such as the autonomous guarantee, we gladly refer you to our next newsletters.
Walid Bensaïd (Associate) & Ulrike Beuselinck (Partner – Mediator)