Who was sanctioned, and for what?

From January 2013 to March 2022, the distributor of premium pet food and pet supplies imposed minimum resale prices on its retailers and threatened sanctions if they were undercut. In a settlement procedure, the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed 36.438 million CZK; the company ended the conduct after the inspection and introduced a compliance programme.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Verbot vertikaler Preisbindung (tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Termination immediately after the inspection, information of customers about free pricing, full cooperation, settlement and newly introduced compliance programme.

Published

24 Sep 2026

Original amount 36,438,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Sep 2026.

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

Empire Company Limited, parent company of grocery banners such as Sobeys, Farm Boy, Safeway, IGA, Foodland, FreshCo, Marché Bonichoix and Les Marchés Tradition, reached an agreement with the Competition Bureau on its use of property controls in the Canadian grocery sector. The Commissioner of Competition filed it with the Competition Tribunal as a registered consent agreement on 22 September 2026. In June 2026 the Bureau had obtained court orders to advance its investigation into these property controls.

Authority / court

Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement, registriert beim Competition Tribunal)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Competition Act; beim Competition Tribunal registriertes Consent Agreement (Paragraf in den zugänglichen Quellen nicht genannt)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

22 Sep 2026

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In 2018–2022, the distributor of professional hairdressing products (Alfaparf, Yellow) determined the prices at which its territorial representatives were allowed to sell to salons and retailers and restricted passive sales outside the territories. Under a settlement and with a commitment to a compliance programme, the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed 68.5 million HUF.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Ungarisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Verbot wettbewerbsbeschränkender Vereinbarungen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation, acknowledgement in the settlement and commitment to a comprehensive compliance programme.

Published

7 Aug 2026

Original amount 68,500,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 Aug 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (Croatian Competition Agency, AZTN) found that Kaufland Hrvatska charged food suppliers fees for services not provided and for advertising not commissioned, and paid for perishable goods only after more than 30 days. For these unfair trading practices, and with repeat offending as an aggravating factor (final penalty already in 2020), it imposed 300,000 EUR (date = publication).

Authority / court

Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (AZTN)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 4, 11, 12 Zakon o zabrani nepoštenih trgovačkih praksi u lancu opskrbe hranom (ZNTP)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Repeat case

yes

Published

24 Jun 2026

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

The importer and wholesaler of the Vans, Eastpak and The North Face brands contractually prohibited its retailers from using price comparison portals and search engine advertising (in particular Google Ads). The Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission) regarded this as a hardcore restriction in online sales and, in a settlement procedure (Decision 913/2026), set a reduced fine of 954,485 EUR; date = press release.

Authority / court

Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 1 Gesetz 3959/2011; Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 4 lit. e VO (EU) 2022/720

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure (Diettheti Diaforon) with fine reduction

Published

3 Jun 2026

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

For more than ten years from 2012, the distributor and retailer of consumer electronics and household appliances set minimum resale prices for its retail customers, monitored them and sanctioned deviations. The Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed 38.971 million CZK; a leniency application, settlement and an improved compliance programme reduced the fine, and the company appealed against the amount.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency application, settlement and expansion of the internal compliance programme.

Published

6 May 2026

Original amount 38,971,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

According to the decision of the Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council), the distributor Rickman Trade set the resale prices for JURA coffee machines for retailers, while EUGESTA and Innocent PRO monitored and maintained those prices at retail level in order to secure a uniform price level in Latvia. Fines: Rickman Trade OÜ with its Latvian branch 255,938.04 EUR, EUGESTA 232,636.20 EUR and Innocent PRO, after a 10 % settlement reduction, 23,525.93 EUR, totalling 512,100.17 EUR.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 11 Abs. 1 Konkurences likums (Wettbewerbsgesetz)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Innocent PRO received a 10 % reduction following a settlement offer.

Published

7 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The AGCM found that, within its selective distribution system for jewellery and watches, Morellato set its retailers' online resale prices and prohibited them from using third-party marketplaces and intermediation platforms from 20 July 2018 to 23 December 2025; by way of retaliation, Morellato blocked orders (Art. 101(1) TFEU). The fine amounts to 25,895,043 EUR.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; Art. 15 Legge n. 287/1990

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Because treating the marketplace ban as a restriction of competition was novel, the AGCM calculated the fine solely on the basis of the online resale price maintenance.

Published

31 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Two importers of dog and cat food monitored their retailers’ consumer prices on price comparison portals and asked them to adjust them to their price lists; the retailers complied. In a settlement procedure (Decision 901/2026), the Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission) imposed 387,498 EUR on KOMPA and 95,000 EUR on Happy Dog; the case began with a tip-off via the authority’s anonymous whistleblowing platform.

Authority / court

Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 1 Gesetz 3959/2011; Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure with reduced fines

Published

6 Mar 2026

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

The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) prohibited Amazon from steering third-party sellers' prices on amazon.de through price control mechanisms that deactivate offers deemed too expensive or exclude them from the 'Buy Box'; such mechanisms are now only permitted exceptionally, for instance in cases of price gouging, with transparent rules and notifications. At the same time, for the first time since the 2023 reform, the authority ordered disgorgement of economic benefits: for the period from 7 November 2023 to 31 December 2024 Amazon must pay around 58.8 million EUR (press release: around 59 million EUR; the exact amount is redacted in the public version).

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

§ 19a Abs. 2 S. 1 Nr. 2 GWB, § 19 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 Nr. 1 GWB, Art. 102 AEUV; Vorteilsabschöpfung nach § 34 Abs. 1 GWB (Az. B2-73/20)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Culpability

intentional

Published

5 Feb 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In 2022, clearance of an acquisition in food retail in Martinique was made conditional on the divestiture of a Géant Casino hypermarket by September 2023; Parfait only sold it in September 2025, allowed the value of the assets to deteriorate and obstructed the trustee (decision 25-D-05). Fines: 4.5 million EUR (divestiture), 2.5 million EUR (preservation of value), 600,000 EUR (cooperation).

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Verstoß gegen Zusagen aus Freigabeentscheidung 22-DCC-254 (Fusionskontrolle, Code de commerce)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

3 Nov 2025

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

From November 2021 to August 2024, the retailer (market share 28%) put pressure on economically dependent suppliers: price increases remained unapproved for months, lower prices were demanded in the form of ultimatums and delisting was threatened. The Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) found an unfair trading practice, imposed 1,872,805 EUR and set clear deadlines for negotiations.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Negodīgas tirdzniecības prakses aizlieguma likums (NTPAL)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

5 Nov 2025

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

According to the European Commission's findings, from April 2015 to April 2023 Gucci restricted the freedom of independent online and brick-and-mortar retailers throughout the EEA to set their own resale prices, for example through requirements on recommended prices, maximum discounts and sales periods, and prohibited online sales for one product line. Owing to its cooperation, including revealing an infringement unknown to the Commission, the fine was reduced by 50% to 119,674,000 EUR; separate decisions against Chloé and Loewe were adopted on the same day.

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

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation providing evidence of significant added value, disclosure of an unknown infringement and acknowledgement: 50% reduction.

Published

14 Oct 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (AZTN, Croatian Competition Agency) found that the retail chain TOMMY d.o.o. sold twelve food products to consumers on 4 October 2023 below their purchase price including VAT by combining a promotional price with a 10 % customer discount, which the law against unfair trading practices in the food supply chain prohibits. The authority stressed that discounts as such are permitted and, taking several mitigating circumstances into account, imposed 212,500 EUR.

Authority / court

Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (AZTN)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 11 Abs. 1 Nr. 24 i. V. m. Art. 4 Abs. 2 Nr. 6 Zakon o zabrani nepoštenih trgovačkih praksi u lancu opskrbe hranom (ZNTP)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

The authority took several mitigating circumstances into account.

Published

22 Jul 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO, Swiss Competition Commission) found discounts negotiated jointly through the Markant cooperation to be lawful, but not opaque rebates: suppliers had to buy an ever more expensive service package from Markant, part of whose fees Markant passed on undisclosed to 16 retailers, and suppliers who refused faced collective countermeasures up to delisting. WEKO classed this as an unlawful purchasing-side price agreement and fined the 16 retailers a total of around CHF 28 million. The decision can be appealed to the Federal Administrative Court.

Authority / court

Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Kartellgesetz (KG): unzulässige einkaufsseitige Preisabrede

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

8 Jul 2025

Original amount 28,000,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Jul 2025.

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

From July 2018 to July 2022, Delivery Hero and Glovo agreed a mutual no-poach arrangement, exchanged commercially sensitive information and allocated national markets; this was facilitated by Delivery Hero's minority stake in Glovo. Fines: Delivery Hero 223.285 million EUR, Glovo 105.732 million EUR (settlement procedure, 10 % reduction).

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

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure (10 % reduction)

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

Following a preliminary investigation into rising food prices, the Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found that Kaufland had demanded and received payments from five suppliers for ‘marketing services’ and for ‘optimisation of goods flows’ and logistics that were not fully connected with the sale of their products. For the two prohibited trading practices (Art. 37b(1)(4) ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) it imposed 250,000 leva each, a total of 500,000 leva. An appeal has been lodged against the decision.

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 37b Abs. 1 Nr. 4 ZZK (verbotene Handelspraktiken in der Lebensmittelkette, UTP-Richtlinie)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 500,000 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 May 2025.

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

Since at least 2015, Sennheiser coordinated consumer prices for premium headphones with dealers, monitored them using price comparison services and specialist software and intervened when prices were too low; Sonova continued this after acquiring the business unit in March 2022 until September 2022. The employees had received competition law training but used this knowledge to conceal their conduct (code language). In a settlement procedure, the Bundeskartellamt imposed fines on both companies; the decisions are final.

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 GWB (vertikale Preisbindung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Extensive cooperation and settlement

Published

7 May 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The importer and wholesaler of power tools allegedly prohibited dealers without their own stock from advertising Festool products below the recommended list price and allowed a maximum discount of 15% (minimum resale price maintenance). In a settlement without admission of liability, Vermont allegedly pays ZAR 900,000 in three instalments and introduces a compliance programme with annually updated training.

Authority / court

Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Competition Act 89 of 1998, s. 5(2); ss. 49D, 58(1)(a)(iii), 58(1)(b), 59

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Vermont approached the Commission on its own initiative to settle the matter amicably; training had already started.

Published

4 Mar 2025

Original amount 900,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Mar 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Jura Poland had fixed the resale prices of Jura-brand coffee machines and accessories with electronics retailers. UOKiK imposed fines on Terg (PLN 30,065,250), Jura Poland (PLN 12,212,000), Euro-net (PLN 10,500,450), Media Saturn Online (PLN 6,772,000) and Media Saturn Holding Polska (PLN 6,549,000), totalling PLN 66,098,700. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; Art. 101 Abs. 1 lit. a AEUV; Art. 106 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Original amount 66,098,700 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Feb 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link