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 topicWho?
by company- Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Teva-Gruppe) €462.6m 49 % · 1 case
- Anonymised companies €407.1m 43 % · 8 cases
- Novamont S.p.A., Eni S.p.A. €32.1m 3 % · 1 case
- Vifor Pharma UK Limited u. a. (CSL-Konzern) €27.4m 3 % · 1 case
- Johnson & Johnson Consumer NV; Boehringer Ingelheim SComm; Haleon Belgium NV €11.2m 1 % · 1 case
- Hipolabor Farmacêutica Ltda., Sanval Comércio e Indústria Ltda., Comercial Cirúrgica Rioclarense Ltda. u. a. (5 Unternehmen) €7.15m 1 % · 1 case
- Viatris Inc. €1.8m 0 % · 1 case
- Bayer S.A. €773,398 0 % · 1 case
- Boehringer Ingelheim, Alkaloids of Australia, C2 PHARMA u. a. (7 Unternehmen) €645,231 0 % · 1 case
- Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. und Alchem International (H.K.) Limited €489,000 0 % · 1 case
- 3 more€236,068
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 4 | €170.5m |
| 2023 | 3 | €220.7m |
| 2024 | 4 | €487.4m |
| 2025 | 8 | €72.9m |
| 2026 | 1 | – |
20 cases
14 Aug 2026 Henkel AG & Co. KGaAHenkel/Liquid Nails: court blocks takeover of Loctite’s main competitor Order
Henkel wanted to buy the construction adhesive brand Liquid Nails for 725 million USD from the financial investor American Industrial Partners, thereby taking over the main competitor of its Loctite brand. After a seven-day trial, the federal court, on application by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), issued a permanent injunction against the acquisition.
Acquiring the closest competitor carries a high risk of prohibition, even at a moderate deal volume.
- Authority / court
- U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (auf Antrag der FTC)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Section 7 Clayton Act; Section 13(b) FTC Act (Permanent Injunction)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 17 Aug 2026
- Statement on FTC Win Blocking Loctite, Liquid Nails Construction Adhesive Merger (17.08.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Jul 2025 Tamro Eesti OÜTamro Eesti: order against unfair payment terms for food supplements Order
In consignment agreements, the pharmaceutical wholesaler had made payment to suppliers of food supplements dependent on subsequent resale (payment period over 30 days) and had reserved the right to hold suppliers liable for spoiled goods. The Konkurentsiamet (Estonian Competition Authority) found infringements of the act on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain and ordered amended contractual terms.
Purchasing terms in the food sector – including for food supplements – must comply with the 30-day payment period and the prohibition on shifting risk.
- Authority / court
- Konkurentsiamet (Estnische Wettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- § 4 Abs. 1 und 2, § 5 Abs. 2, § 7 Abs. 1 PTEKS (UTP-Richtlinie (EU) 2019/633)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Ettekirjutus Tamro Eesti OÜ-le ebaausate kaubandustavade kasutamise lõpetamiseks nr 11-4/2025-001, 25.07.2025 Decision of an authority
- Konkurentsiamet – Ausad kaubandustavad: juhtumid Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Jul 2025 Alchem International Pvt. Ltd. und Alchem International (H.K.) LimitedAlchem: €489,000 fine for taking part in the SNBB pharmaceutical ingredient cartel €489,000
According to the European Commission's findings, Alchem took part from 1 November 2005 to 12 February 2018 in an EEA-wide cartel concerning the active ingredient N-butylbromide scopolamine (SNBB), involving minimum prices, quotas and exchanges of sensitive information. Unlike the other participants, who were subject to a settlement decision in October 2023, Alchem declined to settle and received a fine of 489,000 EUR without any reduction.
Suppliers of active pharmaceutical ingredients are also subject to the cartel prohibition; those who do not cooperate forgo reductions.
Price-fixing and quota agreements between competitors
- Authority / court
- Europäische Kommission
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Published
- 4 Jul 2025
- Commission fines Alchem for participating in a pharmaceutical cartel (IP/25/1721) Press release of an authority
- Presscorner-Schnittstelle, Volltext IP/25/1721 Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
10 Jun 2025 Novamont S.p.A., Eni S.p.A.AGCM fines Novamont and Eni €32.1m over exclusivity ties in bioplastics €32.1m
According to the AGCM, from at least January 2018 to December 2023 Novamont tied film producers to its bioplastic Mater-Bi through exclusive or semi-exclusive purchasing obligations and tied retail chains to carrier bags made by its licensees, thereby excluding competitors in bio-compounds for lightweight and very lightweight plastic carrier bags (Art. 102 TFEU). Novamont must pay 30,359,000 EUR (capped at the 10% turnover limit); for the period after its acquisition by the Eni group on 18 October 2023, Novamont and Eni are jointly and severally liable for a further 1,701,052.08 EUR, a total of 32,060,052.08 EUR.
A compliance programme must address the specific competition risks of the business, such as exclusivity clauses used by a strong supplier, or it will not reduce the fine.
Exclusivity clauses of dominant suppliers and effective compliance programmes
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- Art. 102 AEUV; Art. 15 Legge n. 287/1990
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Mitigating circumstances
- None recognised: the compliance programme of the Eni group, which Novamont joined in October 2023, had not worked effectively because training and controls covered other topics and exclusive contracts continued to be concluded; the AGCM considered Novamont's earlier programme manifestly inadequate, partly because its competition law manual did not specifically address exclusive purchasing obligations among the forms of abuse.
- Published
- 24 Jun 2025
- AGCM, Provvedimento A573 (Adunanza 10.06.2025), Chiusura istruttoria e sanzioni Decision of an authority
- AGCM, Comunicato stampa 24.06.2025: A573 – sanzioni complessivamente pari a oltre 32 milioni di euro a Novamont e alla controllante Eni Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
23 May 2025 Vifor Pharma UK Limited u. a. (CSL-Konzern)CMA: Vifor pays GBP 23m to the NHS after suspected disparagement of a rival €27.4m
The CMA had investigated whether, between 2010 and 2024, Vifor abused a suspected dominant position in high-dose intravenous iron by spreading potentially misleading claims about the safety of the rival product Monofer compared with its own Ferinject. It accepted binding commitments: a voluntary payment of GBP 23m to the NHS, a corrective communication campaign aimed at healthcare professionals and additional compliance measures; no infringement was found.
Safety claims about competing products made to healthcare professionals must be substantiated and balanced – disparagement can be pursued as an abuse of market power.
Claims about competitor products in pharmaceutical marketing
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- Chapter II prohibition, section 18(1) Competition Act 1998 (Verdacht); Verpflichtungszusagen nach section 31A Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Published
- 23 May 2025
Original amount 23,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 May 2025.
- CMA case page: Investigation into suspected anti-competitive conduct by Vifor Pharma in relation to intravenous iron treatments Enforcement database of an authority
- CMA: Decision to accept commitments offered by Vifor in relation to the supply of high-dose intravenous iron, Case 51377 (23 May 2025) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Apr 2025 Bayer S.A.Bayer pays 5 million BRL in CADE settlement over information exchange among employers €773,398
Bayer S.A. concluded a settlement (Termo de Compromisso de Cessação) with the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE, Brazilian competition authority) in proceedings concerning the exchange of competitively sensitive information between employers in the consumer goods sector with possible effects on the Brazilian labour market. The company admitted its participation, undertook to cease the conduct and to cooperate with the investigation, and allegedly pays 5,003,188.80 BRL to the Fund for Diffuse Rights (FDD). In the same proceedings, 3M do Brasil concluded a separate settlement of allegedly 4,454,414.82 BRL. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.
Exchanging sensitive HR and labour market information between competing employers also carries competition law risk.
Competition law in HR: information exchange between employers
- Authority / court
- Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), Tribunal Administrativo
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Lei nº 12.529/2011 (Lei de Defesa da Concorrência), Termo de Compromisso de Cessação
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 6 May 2025
Original amount 5,003,188.8 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Apr 2025.
- CADE – Cade celebra seis acordos em investigações de condutas anticompetitivas (06.05.2025) Press release of an authority
- Diário Oficial da União, 06.05.2025 – CADE Ata nº 8/2025 (Circuito Deliberativo Virtual), Processo nº 08700.007344/2024-40 (Bayer S.A.) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Apr 2025 Johnson & Johnson Consumer NV; Boehringer Ingelheim SComm; Haleon Belgium NVJohnson & Johnson, Boehringer, Haleon: 11.2 million EUR for shelf-placement collusion in pharmacies €11.2m
Over more than 15 years, the three OTC medicine manufacturers jointly developed the category management project ‘SMAN’, through which they steered the placement of non-prescription medicines in selected pharmacies in their favour and disadvantaged or excluded competing products. In a settlement procedure, the Autorité belge de la Concurrence / Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit (Belgian Competition Authority, BMA) imposed a total of 11,249,280.48 EUR.
Category management agreements with retailers must not push competitors off the shelf – joint planograms with competitors are off limits.
Competition law limits of category management
- Authority / court
- Autorité belge de la Concurrence / Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit (BMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Code de droit économique Art. IV.1; AEUV Art. 101
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 24 Apr 2025
- BMA – Communiqué de presse N°16/2025 (24.04.2025) Press release of an authority
- BMA – Beslissing BMA-2025-RPR-13-AUD (SMAN), publieke versie Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
10 Apr 2025 Boehringer Ingelheim, Alkaloids of Australia, C2 PHARMA u. a. (7 Unternehmen)WEKO sanctions active-ingredient cartel over butylscopolamine bromide at around CHF 600,000 €645,231
Between 2005 and 2019 Boehringer Ingelheim, Alkaloids of Australia, Alkaloids Corporation, Alchem, C2 PHARMA, Linnea and Transo-Pharm set minimum selling prices for the active ingredient butylscopolamine bromide (SNBB), allocated quotas and exchanged sensitive business information. The Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO, Swiss Competition Commission) closed the case with amicable settlements; sanctions total around CHF 600,000, with C2 PHARMA as the self-reporting party exempted in full and Transo-Pharm and Linnea in part. It is the first cartel concerning a pharmaceutical active ingredient that WEKO has sanctioned.
Even small niche markets for intermediate products are watched by competition authorities, and the first to report can escape the sanction entirely.
Cartel risks for intermediate products and active ingredients; leniency programme
- Authority / court
- Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Kartellgesetz (KG): Preis- und Mengenabrede, einvernehmliche Regelungen, Bonusregelung
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Mitigating circumstances
- Amicable settlements; full immunity for C2 PHARMA (leniency programme), partial reduction for Transo-Pharm and Linnea.
- Published
- 10 Apr 2025
Original amount 600,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Apr 2025.
- WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 10.04.2025: WEKO sanktioniert Abrede über pharmazeutischen Wirkstoff Press release of an authority
- Newsroom-Schnittstelle der Bundesverwaltung: Volltext der WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 10.04.2025 (onsb_de_105610) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Apr 2025 Pailpac (Pty) LtdAlleged abuse of dominance: Pailpac allegedly pays ZAR 5m and ends exclusive contracts €236,068
On 8 April 2025 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement with Pailpac (Pty) Ltd, a maker of injection-moulded plastic pails for the paints and coatings industry. The Competition Commission (competition authority) alleged that, as the dominant supplier of containers for water-based coatings, the company had tied major customers through exclusive or near-exclusive supply agreements and used below-cost pricing; Pailpac disputes this. It nevertheless allegedly pays an administrative penalty of 5,000,000 ZAR, releases customers from exclusivity and automatic renewal clauses, will buy packaging waste from small businesses and informal waste collectors for five years and will introduce a compliance programme.
Suppliers with strong market positions should have exclusivity and automatic renewal clauses checked under competition law before tying major customers to them.
Exclusive contracts and below-cost pricing by dominant firms
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- Section 8(1)(d)(i) und 8(1)(c) Competition Act 89 of 1998 (Vorwurf der Competition Commission, ohne Anerkenntnis)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Published
- 9 Apr 2025
Original amount 5,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Apr 2025.
- Competition Tribunal: Tribunal confirms Pailpac consent agreement: R5 million administrative penalty and an end to exclusive supply arrangements (09.04.2025) Court press release
- Competition Tribunal case file CR055Jun24/SA142Dec24 (Outcome: Confirmed, Order date 2025-04-08) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
11 Dec 2024 Hipolabor Farmacêutica Ltda., Sanval Comércio e Indústria Ltda., Comercial Cirúrgica Rioclarense Ltda. u. a. (5 Unternehmen)CADE: hub-and-spoke cartel in medicines – BRL 45.3m on five companies €7.15m
The CADE Tribunal convicted five companies of a cartel in public tenders for medicines and in private pharmaceutical sales which, according to CADE, operated at least from 2007 to 2011 in states including Minas Gerais, São Paulo, Bahia and Pernambuco; besides direct price-fixing between manufacturers, some manufacturers facilitated collusion between distributors (hub-and-spoke cartel). The fines on the companies total 45,328,574.05 BRL (Hipolabor Farmacêutica 15,741,025.02; Sanval 12,191,091.60; Comercial Cirúrgica Rioclarense 11,952,437.72; Rhamis Distribuidora Farmacêutica 3,585,615.18; Macromed 1,858,404.53 BRL). Proceedings against several other parties were closed for lack of evidence or because settlements had been fulfilled. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.
Manufacturers must neither organise nor facilitate price coordination between their distributors; acting as the "hub" is itself a cartel infringement.
Hub-and-spoke collusion between manufacturers and distributors in tenders
- Authority / court
- Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), Tribunal Administrativo
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 20 I–IV i. V. m. Art. 21 I, II, III, VIII Lei nº 8.884/1994, entsprechend Art. 36 I–IV, § 3 I a, c, d Lei nº 12.529/2011; Bemessung nach Art. 37 Lei nº 12.529/2011
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 12 Dec 2024
Original amount 45,328,574.05 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Dec 2024.
- Diário Oficial da União, 18.12.2024, Seção 1, S. 92: Ata da 241ª Sessão Ordinária de Julgamento (11.12.2024), PA nº 08012.002222/2011-09 Official register or notice
- CADE, 12.12.2024: Tribunal do Cade condena cartel no setor de medicamentos Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 Nov 2024 Viatris Inc.Viatris: 1.5 million GBP – key staff replaced despite hold-separate order €1.8m
During the review of the sale of the European rights to the hormone products Duphaston and Femoston to Theramex, an Initial Enforcement Order was in force. Viatris replaced members of the UK management without the consent of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and subsequently failed to report the breach; the CMA imposed 1.5 million GBP.
During a merger review, staffing decisions in the target business also require consent – and breaches must be reported immediately.
Standstill and interim obligations in merger proceedings (management, HR)
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Enterprise Act 2002, s. 72(2) (Initial Enforcement Order), s. 94A
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
Original amount 1,500,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Nov 2024.
- CMA: Viatris fined £1.5m for failure to comply with CMA order (22.11.2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
31 Oct 2024 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Teva-Gruppe)EU: 462.6 million EUR against Teva for patent misuse and disparaging a competing medicine €462.6m
Teva abused its dominant position for the MS medicine Copaxone: it artificially extended patent protection by filing staggered divisional applications with the EPO and strategically withdrawing them, and spread misleading statements about an authorised competing product among physicians and decision-makers. Seven Member States were affected over periods of four to nine years.
Communications by sales representatives and medical affairs about competing products must be substantiated and objective; patent strategies of dominant companies require competition law review.
Disparaging statements about competing products to healthcare professionals
- Authority / court
- Europäische Kommission
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- Art. 102 AEUV
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Commission fines Teva €462.6 million over misuse of the patent system and disparagement (IP/24/5581) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Jun 2024 a US flavours and fragrances manufacturer and its French subsidiaryFragrance manufacturer: €15.9m fine for deleting WhatsApp messages during an inspection €15.9m
During a European Commission inspection in the fragrance sector in March 2023, a senior employee of the manufacturer, after being informed of the inspection, deleted WhatsApp messages exchanged with a competitor on a mobile phone; the Commission treated this as obstruction of the inspection. It is the Commission's first fine for deleting messages in a messaging app; because of the manufacturer's cooperation, the amount was reduced by 50% to €15.9m (0.15% of total turnover).
During regulatory inspections, companies must immediately ensure that nobody deletes data on work phones or in messaging apps.
Conduct during dawn raids and preservation of evidence in messaging apps
- Authority / court
- Europäische Kommission
- Area of law
- Competition law
- Legal basis
- Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1/2003 (Behinderung einer Nachprüfung)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Culpability
- intentional
- Mitigating circumstances
- Immediate acknowledgement, proactive cooperation and help in recovering the data: 50% reduction.
- Liability of senior managers
- The deletion was carried out by a senior employee; the fine is addressed to the companies.
- Published
- 24 Jun 2024
- Europäische Kommission, Presseraum (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 24 Jun 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
20 Dec 2023 a Portuguese supplier of food supplements and health productsPortugal: €1.04m for health products supplier over imposed resale prices €1.04m
The competition authority fined the supplier of food supplements and health products 1,040,000 EUR because between 2016 and 2022 it prescribed retail prices and discount limits to distributors, monitored them and responded to deviations with cuts in terms or supply restrictions. The decision is not final.
Suppliers should rule out price instructions to distributors and their monitoring, both in contracts and in practice.
Resale price maintenance
- Authority / court
- Autoridade da Concorrência (AdC)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 9 Lei n.º 19/2012 (Lei da Concorrência); Art. 101 AEUV
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Published
- 29 Dec 2023
- AdC, Nachrichten und Mitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 20 Dec 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
19 Oct 2023 six manufacturers and traders of an active pharmaceutical ingredientEU: 13.4 million EUR against pharmaceutical ingredient cartel (SNBB) €13.4m
From 2005 to 2019, six manufacturers and traders of the active ingredient SNBB (the base substance for a branded medicine and generics) fixed minimum prices, allocated quotas and exchanged sensitive information. This was the first cartel concerning an active pharmaceutical ingredient that the Commission has sanctioned; the leniency applicant received full immunity, and all parties reached a settlement.
Even small niche markets for active ingredients are in the spotlight – contacts with competitors about prices or volumes are off-limits.
Price and quota agreements in the trade in active ingredients
- Authority / court
- Europäische Kommission
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 101 AEUV, Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Mitigating circumstances
- Leniency programme (leniency applicant 100 %, a second company 50 %, a third 30 %), 10 % settlement reduction
- Europäische Kommission, Presseraum (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 19 Oct 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Aug 2023 a US generic drug manufacturerDOJ: generics manufacturer pays 225 million USD criminal penalty over generic drug price fixing €206.3m
In a Deferred Prosecution Agreement, the manufacturer admitted to three conspiracies involving price fixing, customer allocation and bid rigging for generic drugs (including pravastatin). The manufacturer is paying a criminal penalty of 225 million USD in instalments, donating medicines worth 50 million USD and must divest its pravastatin business under the supervision of a monitor.
In addition to penalties running into millions, antitrust violations can force companies to divest entire product lines.
Agreements among generic drug manufacturers on prices and customers
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- 15 U.S.C. § 1 (Sherman Act)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
Original amount 225,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Aug 2023.
- DOJ Antitrust Division, Case Filings (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 21 Aug 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
29 Nov 2022 six purchasers of styrene monomerEU: 157 million EUR against purchasing cartel for styrene monomer €157.1m
From 2012 to 2018, six purchasers of styrene coordinated their negotiating strategy for the industry reference price (SMCP) and exchanged price information in order to push down the purchase price. The Commission imposed fines totalling 157 million EUR, including 32.505 million EUR on one company and 31.72 million EUR on another; the leniency applicant escaped a fine.
Not only selling but also purchasing agreements are prohibited – buyers need competition law training just as much as sales staff.
Purchasing cartel: coordination of negotiating strategies among buyers
- Authority / court
- Europäische Kommission
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 101 AEUV, Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Mitigating circumstances
- Leniency programme for almost all parties, 10 % settlement reduction
- Europäische Kommission, Presseraum (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2022) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 29 Nov 2024 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Nov 2022 a Portuguese food supplement supplierPortugal: €1.26m for food supplement supplier over resale price maintenance €1.26m
The competition authority fined the food supplement supplier 1,258,900 EUR because, from October 2015 to January 2022, it dictated retail prices and maximum discounts to distributors, monitored compliance and punished deviations with worse terms or supply cuts. The fine was reduced by 30% in the settlement procedure.
Recommended prices become prohibited resale price maintenance once compliance is monitored and deviations are punished.
Resale price maintenance
- Authority / court
- Autoridade da Concorrência (AdC)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 9 Lei n.º 19/2012 (Lei da Concorrência); Art. 101 AEUV
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement procedure (transação), practice ended; 30% reduction.
- Published
- 19 Dec 2022
- AdC, Nachrichten und Mitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2022) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 15 Nov 2024 · Direct link
Report an error
10 Nov 2022 three companies of an international pharmaceutical groupCNMC: €10.25m fine on pharmaceutical group for excessive pricing of an orphan medicine €10.3m
The Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC, Spanish competition and markets authority) imposed a fine of 10,250,000 EUR, for which three companies of the pharmaceutical group are jointly and severally liable, because as the sole supplier of CDCA medicines for the rare metabolic disease cerebrotendinous xanthomatosis they abused their dominant position and charged the Spanish national health system an excessive price. In addition, the group must waive the exclusivity agreed with the only supplier of the active ingredient and market the product directly in Spain.
A sole supplier of an indispensable medicine must be able to justify price increases objectively and must not cut competitors off from the active ingredient through exclusive supply agreements.
Pricing by dominant undertakings (excessive prices)
- Authority / court
- Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- Art. 2 Ley 15/2007 de Defensa de la Competencia; Art. 102 AEUV
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Published
- 14 Nov 2022
- CNMC, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2022) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 10 Nov 2024 · Direct link
Report an error
13 Oct 2022 five pharmaceutical companiesPay-for-delay in cancer drugs: KFTC sanctions originator and generic manufacturers €1.9m
The Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC, Korea's competition authority) objected to an agreement concluded at the end of September 2016 under which the generics side undertook not to manufacture or launch generic versions of three cancer drugs in Korea from October 2016 to December 2020, receiving in return exclusive distribution rights for these originator products from the originator side; according to the KFTC, the arrangement was terminated early on 12 January 2018. It issued cease-and-desist orders against all five companies (two on the originator side, including its Korean company, and three on the generics side, including its Korean company) and provisionally set fines totalling KRW 2,645 million: KRW 1,146 million for the originator side and KRW 1,499 million for the generics side.
Distribution or licensing agreements with a potential generic manufacturer must not contain a clause that rules out its own market entry.
Agreements with potential competitors to refrain from market entry (pay-for-delay)
- Authority / court
- Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 19 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 MRFTA a. F. (Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act; heute Art. 40 Abs. 1 Nr. 3)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Published
- 13 Oct 2022
Original amount 2,645,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Oct 2022.
- Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2022) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 13 Oct 2024 · Direct link