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.

10cases from 10 jurisdictions
€57.9mTotal of monetary amounts (8 cases with an amount)
€418,849Median 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 20241€21m
Q4 20240—
Q1 20250—
Q2 20251€127,314
Q3 20251€30,000
Q4 20251—
Q1 20260—
Q2 20263€36m
Q3 20263€740,405

10 cases

28 Apr 2026 Amica Chips S.p.A., Pata S.p.A., Preziosi Food S.p.A.Italy: 23.3 million EUR against Amica Chips, Pata and Preziosi Food over snack cartel ItalyCartels and collusion €23.3m

In a secret, continuing agreement, three manufacturers of salty snacks and crisps divided up among themselves the supply of private-label snacks to food retailers. Fines: Amica Chips 8,239,210 EUR, Pata 7,555,387 EUR, Preziosi Food 7,503,550 EUR; this was the first time Italy's competition authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, AGCM) applied its settlement procedure.

What organisations can take from it

Retailers' tenders for private labels are competition – coordinated sham bids to retailers constitute a cartel.

Relevance to training and awareness

Sham bids in retailers' private-label tenders

Authority / court
Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 14-quater Gesetz 287/1990 (Settlement)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Food and agriculture
Mitigating circumstances
Leniency reduction for Pata and Amica Chips; 10 % settlement discount for all
Published
28 Apr 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.

17 Sep 2026 Lesy České republiky, s.p. (Lesy ČR)Lesy ČR: 17.3 million CZK for export ban on wood chips CzechiaCartels and collusion €710,383

From July 2021 to July 2024, the state forestry company contractually prohibited a customer from actively and passively exporting wood chips and logging residues and secured the ban with a right of termination. The Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) considered this a restriction of competition by object under Czech and EU law and imposed 17.268 million CZK (first instance, not final).

What organisations can take from it

State-owned companies are also subject to competition law – have export and resale bans in framework agreements legally reviewed before signing.

Relevance to training and awareness

Anticompetitive clauses in supply contracts

Authority / court
Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV (Exportverbot, S0733/2025)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Food and agriculture
Mitigating circumstances
Voluntary termination immediately after proceedings were opened.
Published
17 Sep 2026

Original amount 17,268,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Sep 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.

25 Aug 2026 Elizabeta Promet d.o.o., SolinCroatia: 10,000 EUR against Elizabeta Promet for deliveries without a written contract CroatiaAbuse of market power €10,000

As a buyer with significant bargaining power, the company from Solin purchased agricultural and food products from two suppliers without written contracts. The Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (Croatian Competition Agency, AZTN) considered this an unfair trading practice and, taking mitigating circumstances into account, imposed 10,000 EUR (date = publication).

What organisations can take from it

In food purchasing, the mere absence of written supply contracts is an infringement – a simple contract standard prevents this.

Relevance to training and awareness

Written form for supply contracts in food purchasing

Authority / court
Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (AZTN)
Area of law
Competition law · Abuse of market power
Legal basis
Zakon o zabrani nepoštenih trgovačkih praksi u lancu opskrbe hranom (ZNTP)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Food and agriculture
Mitigating circumstances
Several mitigating circumstances taken into account
Published
25 Aug 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.

6 Aug 2026 „Чили Хилс Фудс“ ООД (Chili Hills Foods OOD)Chili Hills Foods: 20,022 EUR for false copying allegations against competitor BulgariaCompetition law €20,022

From May 2024, in social media videos (campaign ‘Създавай! Не копирай!’), the company falsely accused a competing family business for hot chillies of having stolen its business, ideas and concept, and promoted the clips partly through paid advertising. The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) regarded this as unfair damage to reputation (Art. 30 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act), imposed 4% of 2025 net turnover (500,555 EUR), i.e. 20,022 EUR, and ordered immediate cessation. Appeals have been lodged against the decision.

What organisations can take from it

Allegations against competitors on social media are only permissible if based on verifiable facts – paid reach aggravates the sanction.

Relevance to training and awareness

Statements about competitors on social media

Authority / court
Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)
Area of law
Competition law
Legal basis
Art. 30 ZZK (Schädigung des guten Rufs eines Wettbewerbers)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Food and agriculture
Published
19 Aug 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.

22 May 2026 Parrish & Heimbecker, Limited; GrainsConnect Canada Operations Inc.Canada: grain elevator must be sold in the takeover of GrainsConnect CanadaMerger control Order

The planned acquisition of GrainsConnect by Parrish & Heimbecker would have reduced competition for the purchase of wheat from farmers around Reford (Saskatchewan). The Competition Bureau reached an agreement under which P&H must divest the grain elevator in Reford to an approved buyer and continue to operate it normally until then.

What organisations can take from it

Merger control also has local effects: even a single site can trigger a divestiture requirement.

Authority / court
Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement beim Competition Tribunal)
Area of law
Competition law · Merger control
Legal basis
Competition Act (Kanada), Fusionskontrolle
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Food and agriculture
Published
22 May 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.

16 Apr 2026 Synadis Bio, Greenweez (mit Carrefour SA), ITM Entreprises (mit Les Mousquetaires), Les Comptoirs de la BioFrance: 12.67 million EUR over allocation of distribution channels for organic food FranceCartels and collusion €12.7m

Through the association Synadis Bio, market participants ensured for more than seven years that organic brands were not sold simultaneously in specialist organic shops and in conventional supermarkets, in order to prevent price comparisons (decision 26-D-05). Fines: Synadis Bio 10 million EUR, Greenweez/Carrefour 1.85 million EUR, ITM 740,000 EUR, Les Comptoirs de la Bio 80,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Association decisions that tie members to particular distribution channels amount to market sharing – even if they are justified as a quality or positioning policy.

Relevance to training and awareness

Association rules to foreclose distribution channels

Authority / court
Autorité de la concurrence
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Art. L.420-1 Code de commerce, Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; Bußgeldbemessung nach Art. L.464-2 Code de commerce
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Food and agriculture
Published
16 Apr 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.

17 Dec 2025 Greencore Group plcGreencore/Bakkavor: takeover only with sale of sauce plant in Bristol United KingdomMerger control Order

In the planned acquisition of the food manufacturer Bakkavor, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found a substantial lessening of competition in chilled own-label sauces for UK supermarkets. It cleared the merger only because Greencore undertook to sell its entire chilled soups and sauces plant in Bristol, including its employees, to a pre-determined purchaser.

What organisations can take from it

Even overlaps in small product segments can hold up an entire acquisition – prepare remedies early.

Authority / court
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
Area of law
Competition law · Merger control
Legal basis
Enterprise Act 2002, s. 73(2) (Undertakings in lieu of reference)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Food and agriculture
Published
18 Dec 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.

13 Aug 2025 Portugal: 30,000 EUR for exclusive tying of banana growers on Madeira PortugalAbuse of market power €30,000

A dominant company for the collection, distribution and marketing of Madeira bananas (name not given) required producers to sign exclusivity declarations. In a settlement procedure (PRC/2025/6), it ended the practice and paid 30,000 EUR (date = press release).

What organisations can take from it

Dominant buyers must not tie suppliers through exclusivity clauses – even small regional markets are being watched.

Authority / court
Autoridade da Concorrência (AdC)
Area of law
Competition law · Abuse of market power
Legal basis
Lei da Concorrência (Lei n.º 19/2012), Art. 11.º; Art. 102 AEUV
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Food and agriculture
Mitigating circumstances
Settlement (transação), full cooperation, immediate cessation, short duration
Published
13 Aug 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.

2 May 2025 Ατλάντα Αντιπροσωπείαι – Διανομαί Α.Ε.Greece: 127,314 EUR against breakfast cereal distributor Atlanta for resale price maintenance GreeceCartels and collusion €127,314

From March to August 2021, the distribution partner for breakfast cereals set resale prices, which retailers and supermarket chains largely adopted. The Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission) accepted the settlement proposal and, by Decision 878/2025, imposed a reduced fine of 127,314 EUR; date = press release.

What organisations can take from it

Even short periods of imposing prices on retailers carry fines – sales teams must know the line between recommendation and requirement.

Relevance to training and awareness

Resale price maintenance towards retailers

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
Food and agriculture
Mitigating circumstances
Settlement procedure with fine reduction
Published
2 May 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.

18 Sep 2024 AGROFERT, a.s.AGROFERT: 21 million EUR for concealed takeover of two large bakeries upheld SlovakiaMerger control €21m

In 2013, AGROFERT acquired control of the bakeries PRVÁ BRATISLAVSKÁ PEKÁRENSKÁ and PEZA, but had the Žilina bakery held covertly by a third party for two years in order to circumvent the notification threshold – the authority had rejected an earlier takeover in 2011. The Council of the Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, PMÚ SR) upheld the fine of 21 million EUR; final since 27 September 2024.

What organisations can take from it

Staggered acquisitions or acquisitions concealed via third parties are aggregated – circumvention structures increase the fine.

Authority / court
Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (PMÚ SR)
Area of law
Competition law · Merger control
Legal basis
Slowakisches Wettbewerbsschutzgesetz (Nichtanmeldung und Vollzug eines Zusammenschlusses)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Food and agriculture
Culpability
intentional
Published
8 Oct 2024

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