Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa: 2,207 cases from 44 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.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by action- Fine €18m 100 % · 15 cases
Who?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | €3.15m |
| 2023 | 3 | €1.44m |
| 2024 | 5 | €9.64m |
| 2025 | 5 | €3.74m |
| 2026 | 1 | €1,135 |
15 cases
7 Apr 2026 Wspólnota Mieszkaniowa K. (Wohnungseigentümergemeinschaft, im Bescheid pseudonymisiert)Homeowners’ association: 4,852 PLN – misdirected statement not notified €1,135
Acting as processor, the property management company sent an owner’s statement of service charges to an unauthorised person. The association considered notification unnecessary because only ‘ordinary’ data of one member were affected, and maintained this position in the proceedings; the UODO (Poland’s data protection authority) imposed 4,852 PLN.
Small controllers must also assess and notify data breaches by their service providers – ‘only one data subject’ is no ground for exemption.
Recognising misdirected mail as a data breach – including at service providers
- Authority / court
- Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 33 Abs. 1 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
Original amount 4,852 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 Apr 2026.
- UODO, Decyzja DKN.5131.16.2025 vom 07.04.2026 (rechtskräftig) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
23 Oct 2025 Komornik Sądowy przy Sądzie Rejonowym w S. (Gerichtsvollzieherkanzlei, im Bescheid pseudonymisiert)Bailiff: 20,900 PLN – documents with PESEL number misdirected, not notified €4,938
In October 2023, an uninvolved person received a debtor’s enforcement documents containing name, address, date of birth, PESEL number, amount of the claim and employer. The bailiff’s office neither notified the supervisory authority nor informed the data subject; the UODO (Poland’s data protection authority) imposed 7,700 PLN for the failure to notify and 13,200 PLN for the failure to inform the data subject, and ordered the data subject to be informed within three days.
Where identification numbers such as the PESEL number are disclosed, a high risk can almost always be assumed – notification of the authority and of the data subject is then mandatory.
Checking postal mailings; notifying data breaches involving identification numbers
- Authority / court
- Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 33 Abs. 1, Art. 34 Abs. 1 und 2 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Public sector
Original amount 20,900 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Oct 2025.
- UODO, Decyzja DKN.5131.17.2024 vom 23.10.2025 (nicht rechtskräftig) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
14 Oct 2025 Infinity Insurance CompanyInfinity Insurance: 2.25 million USD – data leak via quoting tool reported too late €1.95m
Attackers extracted driver’s licence numbers in plain text via the motor insurer’s instant quote applications. Infinity discovered the anomalies on 9 February 2021 but only reported the cybersecurity event to the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) on 14 April 2021; the supervisor also criticised the lack of MFA and insecure development practices.
Misuse of publicly accessible customer applications is also a reportable incident – warnings from the supervisor should trigger an immediate reporting assessment.
- Authority / court
- New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- 23 NYCRR § 500.17(a), § 500.12(a) u. a.
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- negligent
Original amount 2,250,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Oct 2025.
- NYDFS Consent Order to Infinity Insurance Company (14.10.2025) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Sep 2025 A*** GmbH (Werbeagentur, im Bescheid pseudonymisiert)Austrian advertising agency: 870 EUR – alert about security gap dismissed as spam €870
Customer data (including names, e-mail addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers) could be retrieved via an unprotected development server of the advertising agency. An employee took the first alert from an external party in January 2025 to be spam; only a second alert in February reached management, which closed the gap but only notified the incident on 2 May 2025 after being requested to do so by the Datenschutzbehörde (Austrian Data Protection Authority, DSB). The authority attributed the employee’s conduct to the company.
External alerts about security gaps need a clear intake channel – what ends up in spam still counts as known.
Recognising and escalating alerts about security gaps
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 33 Abs. 1 iVm Art. 83 Abs. 4 lit. a DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- No previous infringements and cooperation in the proceedings; gap closed immediately after the second alert, employees trained subsequently.
- DSB, Straferkenntnis GZ 2025-0.699.550 vom 04.09.2025 (RIS) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
14 Aug 2025 Healthplex, Inc.Healthplex: 2 million USD – phishing incident not reported to supervisor for months €1.71m
An employee of the dental insurance service provider disclosed his login credentials via a phishing e-mail; the mailbox containing over 100,000 e-mails with health and social security data was accessible. Healthplex had known about the incident since November 2021 but only reported it to the New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS) in April 2022 instead of within 72 hours; in addition, there was no MFA for web access and no data retention and deletion policy.
Security incidents require a fixed reporting process with deadline control – the 72-hour clock starts when the incident is identified, not when forensics is completed.
Recognising phishing; reporting channels for security incidents
- Authority / court
- New York State Department of Financial Services (NYDFS)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- 23 NYCRR § 500.17(a), § 500.12(b), § 500.13, § 500.17(b)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- negligent
Original amount 2,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Aug 2025.
- NYDFS Consent Order to Healthplex, Inc. (14.08.2025) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
10 Jul 2025 Poste Vita S.p.A.Poste Vita: 80,000 EUR – data breach notified only four months after customer’s alert €80,000
A fraudster impersonated a customer by e-mail and, between 2021 and 2023, obtained information and documents on three policies from the life insurer’s case handlers without his identity being verified. Although the customer alerted the company to the false e-mail address in September 2024, Poste Vita only notified the breach to the supervisory authority in January 2025.
Customer alerts about possible data leaks must go into the incident assessment immediately – not only after internal checks are completed.
Identity verification for customer requests by e-mail (social engineering)
- Authority / court
- Garante per la protezione dei dati personali
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und f, Art. 33 Abs. 1 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- Immediate blocking of further communication, internal investigation, criminal complaint and stricter identity verification.
- Garante privacy, Provvedimento del 10 luglio 2025 [10154110] Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Nov 2024 Meta PlatformsMeta: 5 million KRW for reporting an Instagram outage late €3,396
After a login outage of around 75 minutes on Instagram on 22 March 2024 that affected some 3.35 million users in Korea, Meta Platforms reported the incident only 24 hours and 19 minutes after it began, despite three requests from the Ministry. A report within 10 minutes and a written report within two hours are required; the Ministry imposed an administrative fine of 5,000,000 KRW under the Framework Act on Broadcasting and Communications Development (방송통신발전 기본법). The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.
Large platform operators need a rehearsed reporting process so that outages reach the regulator within the statutory deadlines measured in minutes.
Reporting and escalation routes for IT outages
- Authority / court
- Ministry of Science and ICT (MSIT, 과학기술정보통신부)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Framework Act on Broadcasting and Communications Development (방송통신발전 기본법) Art. 38; Basisplan zum Management von Kommunikationsstörungen 2024
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 28 Nov 2024
Original amount 5,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Nov 2024.
- MSIT-Pressemitteilung vom 28.11.2024: ‘통신재난 보고의무 미준수’ 메타에 과태료 처분 Press release of an authority
- MSIT-Pressemitteilung vom 28.11.2024 (Anhang, HWPX) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 May 2024 a US exchange group and nine of its subsidiariesUS exchange group: 10 million USD – cyber attack not reported to the SEC €9.23m
In April 2021, a third party alerted the group to a vulnerability in its VPN; the group found malicious code that had been inserted but did not inform the legal and compliance officers of its exchange and clearing subsidiaries for days. As a result, the subsidiaries, including a stock exchange, did not immediately report the incident to the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) as required under Regulation SCI; the group paid 10 million USD.
Operators of critical market infrastructure need internal reporting channels that pass cyber incidents on to all entities subject to reporting obligations within hours.
Internal escalation of cyber incidents to compliance
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Regulation Systems Compliance and Integrity (Regulation SCI), Meldepflichten
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Repeat case
- yes
Original amount 10,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 May 2024.
- SEC, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 22 May 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
12 Mar 2024 a Polish major bankPolish major bank: 1.44 million PLN – stolen customer documents not reported €336,066
A courier consignment containing bank documents (including PESEL numbers, account numbers, login credentials) was stolen and discarded on a housing estate; the supervisory authority learned of it from the media. The bank had informed neither the authority nor the data subjects because it rated the risk as low – it had already been sanctioned in 2022 for failing to notify data subjects.
Assess the risk of a data breach from the data subjects’ perspective – failing to notify the loss of sensitive documents risks a higher penalty than the breach itself.
Risk assessment and notification of data breaches
- Authority / court
- Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 33 Abs. 1, Art. 34 Abs. 1 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Repeat case
- yes
- Published
- 2 Apr 2024
Original amount 1,440,549 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Mar 2024.
- UODO, Nachrichten (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Press release of an authority
- UODO, Entscheidungsdatenbank (Suche) (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 12 Mar 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
12 Mar 2024 a Polish bank belonging to a car manufacturerPolish bank: 78,575 PLN – misdirected mailing reported only after 1.5 years €18,331
The bank sent a customer’s contract data to the wrong recipient and only reported the breach one and a half years later, when the supervisory authority made enquiries following a complaint. Given the risk of identity theft, the authority considered that there had been an obligation to notify within 72 hours.
Even a single misdirected mailing containing identity data is notifiable – misdirected mail cases need a documented risk assessment.
Recognising misdirected mail and reporting it internally
- Authority / court
- Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 33 Abs. 1 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Published
- 2 Apr 2024
Original amount 78,575.4 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Mar 2024.
- UODO, Nachrichten (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Press release of an authority
- UODO, Entscheidungsdatenbank (Suche) (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 12 Mar 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Feb 2024 a German major bankBaFin fines a major bank €50,000 for flawed reporting of an IT security incident €50,000
BaFin (German Federal Financial Supervisory Authority) imposed a fine of 50,000 EUR on a German major bank because the bank had given it incorrect information about a major customer-relevant IT security incident affecting its payment services in 2023 and had informed it considerably late. The decision of 8 February 2024 is final.
IT incident reports must be fast and accurate; incorrect information given to the supervisor is sanctioned in its own right.
Reporting major IT security incidents correctly and on time
- Authority / court
- Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- § 64 Abs. 3 Nr. 15 ZAG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 18 Mar 2024
- BaFin, Maßnahmen und Sanktionen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 8 Feb 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Oct 2023 a Polish insurerPolish insurer: 103,752 PLN – misdirected e-mail not reported after using a risk calculator €23,362
The insurer sent a claims settlement confirmation containing name, address, vehicle and claim data by e-mail to an unauthorised person. After an assessment using an online calculator, it rated the risk as low and did not notify; the supervisory authority found that the notification obligation had been breached and treated, among other things, intent and lack of cooperation as aggravating factors.
Risk assessment tools do not replace judgement – anyone sending out information covered by insurance secrecy should notify if in doubt.
Avoiding misdirected e-mails; reporting data breaches
- Authority / court
- Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 33 Abs. 1 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- yes
- Published
- 23 Nov 2023
Original amount 103,752 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Oct 2023.
- UODO, Nachrichten (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Press release of an authority
- UODO, Entscheidungsdatenbank (Suche) (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 18 Oct 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
20 Feb 2023 a Greek telecommunications providerGreek telecoms provider: 40,000 EUR – other customer’s call recordings sent out, not notified €40,000
In response to her access request, a customer received a CD containing call centre conversations of another customer. The provider did not investigate the alert itself but relied on the service provider and asked for the CD to be returned; the authority sanctioned the failure to notify and the failure to comply with the access request.
If a data subject reports a breach at a service provider, the controller must investigate and notify itself – this obligation cannot be delegated.
Taking data subjects’ alerts about data breaches seriously
- Authority / court
- Αρχή Προστασίας Δεδομένων Προσωπικού Χαρακτήρα (Hellenic DPA)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 15, Art. 33 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Telecoms, IT and software
- Published
- 30 Mar 2023
- Hellenic DPA, Entscheidungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 20 Feb 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
1 Feb 2023 a US telehealth and discount platformTelehealth platform: 1.5 million USD – first penalty under the Health Breach Notification Rule €1.38m
For years, the telehealth and discount platform passed its users’ health data to three large advertising and technology companies and other advertising partners and did not notify these unauthorised disclosures as required by the Health Breach Notification Rule. In the first proceedings under this rule, the platform agreed to a civil penalty of 1.5 million USD and a ban on sharing for advertising purposes; the settlement was still subject to court approval.
Sharing health data via tracking pixels can itself be a notifiable ‘breach’ – include tracking integrations in the incident assessment.
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC) / U.S. Department of Justice
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- FTC Health Breach Notification Rule (16 CFR Part 318); Section 5 FTC Act
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Healthcare
Original amount 1,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Feb 2023.
- FTC, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 1 Feb 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
7 Dec 2022 a Spanish bankSpanish bank: €3.145m ECB penalty for late reporting of a cyber incident €3.15m
The bank reported a significant cyber incident from February 2019 to the ECB not within the prescribed two hours but only 46 hours after the deadline, although it knew of the reporting obligation and the seriousness of the incident; it thereby breached an ECB decision of 23 May 2017. The ECB classified the breach as severe, imposed 3,145,000 EUR and took into account the very active cooperation and the bank's own remedial action as mitigating.
Reporting deadlines for significant cyber incidents also apply while the crisis is being handled; notifying the supervisor belongs firmly in the incident response plan.
Cyber incident reporting obligations
- Authority / court
- Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 18 Abs. 7 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013; EZB-Beschluss vom 23. Mai 2017 (Meldung erheblicher Cybervorfälle)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- intentional
- Mitigating circumstances
- Very active cooperation with the ECB, own remedial action and prompt handling of the effects of the incident.
- Published
- 16 Dec 2022
- EZB-Bankenaufsicht, veröffentlichte Sanktionen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2022) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 7 Dec 2024 · Direct link