Compliance Radar

Who was sanctioned, and for what?

Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 718 cases from 32 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.

6cases from 6 jurisdictions
€2.15mTotal of monetary amounts (5 cases with an amount)
€1.16mLargest single case: Tractor Supply Company
€195,000Median per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

When?

per quarter, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
Q3 20230—
Q4 20230—
Q1 20240—
Q2 20240—
Q3 20240—
Q4 20240—
Q1 20251€500
Q2 20251€10,000
Q3 20252€1.35m
Q4 20250—
Q1 20261—
Q2 20261€792,639
Q3 20260—

6 cases

12 Jun 2026 Verkkokauppa.com OyjKHO confirms fine against Verkkokauppa.com over customer accounts without time limit FinlandData subject rights and transparency €792,639

The online retailer had not set a retention period for customer accounts and kept data until customers requested deletion; purchases were only possible with an account. The sanctions board of the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman imposed 856,000 EUR in 2024, the administrative court reduced the fine to 792,639 EUR on the basis of current turnover, and the Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO) confirmed this on 12 June 2026.

What organisations can take from it

Do not leave deletion to the customer – every online shop needs defined retention periods for accounts and order data.

Authority / court
Korkein hallinto-oikeus (KHO); Sanktionsgremium des Datenschutzbeauftragten
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. e DSGVO
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
reduced
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Published
18 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

5 Mar 2026 Loblaw Companies LimitedOPC: Loblaw must change retention of PC Optimum data after account deletion CanadaData subject rights and transparency Other

During a wave of boycotts in 2024, Loblaw did not process deletion requests in time and retained purchase and usage data from the loyalty programme (more than 17 million members) even after accounts were closed, without demonstrating effective anonymisation. Loblaw undertook to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) to have the anonymisation independently reviewed and to carry out annual deletions.

What organisations can take from it

Companies that continue to use data as anonymous after account deletion must be able to demonstrate the re-identification risk – IP addresses are often enough to link data to a person.

Authority / court
Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC)
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
PIPEDA
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Employees
10,000 or more
Published
5 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

30 Sep 2025 HmbBfDI: 195,000 EUR against retailer over ignored data subject requests GermanyData subject rights and transparency €195,000

A retail company (name not published) had advertising letters sent via service providers and, in several cases, failed for an extended period to respond in time to the data subject rights that recipients then asserted. The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (HmbBfDI) imposed a fine of 195,000 EUR; the measure was published in the interim report of 30 September 2025 (exact date of the decision not stated).

What organisations can take from it

Companies that send advertising must have a working process for access and objection requests – even if the mailing is outsourced.

Relevance to training and awareness

Timely handling of access requests

Authority / court
Hamburgischer Beauftragter für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit (HmbBfDI)
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
DSGVO (Betroffenenrechte)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Published
30 Sep 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

26 Sep 2025 Tractor Supply CompanyCPPA: $1.35 million against Tractor Supply over missing opt-out mechanisms USA, CAData subject rights and transparency €1.16m

The rural retail giant inadequately informed consumers and job applicants about their rights, offered no effective means of opting out of the sale and sharing of data (including no Global Privacy Control) and passed data on to third parties without the required contracts. An officer must certify compliance annually for four years, as required by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).

What organisations can take from it

Privacy notices must also cover job applicants, and browser opt-out signals such as GPC must be implemented technically.

Authority / court
California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA)
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Employees
10,000 or more
Published
30 Sep 2025

Original amount 1,350,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

24 Apr 2025 Dante International SADante International fails to act on erasure requests – 10,000 EUR RomaniaData subject rights and transparency €10,000

Although the platform operator had repeatedly confirmed to a customer that his e-mail addresses had been deleted, he continued to receive feedback requests; in addition, certain partners could see the address. The Romanian data protection authority (ANSPDCP) found breaches of transparency and erasure obligations, imposed 49,770 lei (10,000 EUR) and ordered, among other things, training of the staff responsible.

What organisations can take from it

A confirmed erasure must actually be implemented in all systems – including feedback and partner tools.

Relevance to training and awareness

Handling erasure requests in customer service

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
Art. 12 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 17 und 19 DSGVO
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Published
24 Apr 2025

Original amount 49,770 RON, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Apr 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

6 Mar 2025 SIA "VSV ZOO"Pet shop VSV ZOO fails to respond to review of privacy policy – 500 EUR LatviaData subject rights and transparency €500

As part of a preventive review of the privacy policy on zoopasaule.lv, the Datu valsts inspekcija (Latvian Data State Inspectorate, DVI) repeatedly asked the online pet retailer for information from July 2024 onwards. The company let the first deadlines lapse, later twice asked for an extension citing the absence of its programmer, and still did not deliver thereafter. The DVI imposed 500 EUR for failure to cooperate with the supervisory authority.

What organisations can take from it

A preventive request from the supervisory authority is also binding – anyone who does not respond is sanctioned before the actual deficiency is even addressed.

Relevance to training and awareness

Handling letters from the data protection authority

Authority / court
Datu valsts inspekcija (DVI)
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
Art. 58 Abs. 1 lit. d und e, Art. 83 Abs. 5 lit. e DSGVO
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Culpability
intentional

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Ready for training that sticks?

Try it free for 14 days — from 1 user, no credit card, ends automatically.

Start free trial