Compliance Radar

Who was sanctioned, and for what?

Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 756 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.

Competition law Clear all filters
99cases from 24 jurisdictions
€2.76bnTotal of monetary amounts (84 cases with an amount)
€462.6mLargest single case: Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Teva-Gruppe)
€1.7mMedian 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 20235€37.7m
Q1 20242€5.02m
Q2 20242€133,212
Q3 20243€434.9m
Q4 20249€470m
Q1 20255€84m
Q2 202511€815.4m
Q3 20257€6.96m
Q4 202518€615.8m
Q1 20269€123.5m
Q2 202611€61.7m
Q3 202617€106.2m

99 cases

31 Oct 2024 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Teva-Gruppe)EU: 462.6 million EUR against Teva for patent misuse and disparaging a competing medicine EU levelAbuse of market power €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.

What organisations can take from it

Communications by sales representatives and medical affairs about competing products must be substantiated and objective; patent strategies of dominant companies require competition law review.

Relevance to training and awareness

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

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 Sep 2026 Plaček Pet Products s.r.o.Plaček Pet Products: 36.4 million CZK for minimum prices on pet food CzechiaCartels and collusion €1.49m

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.

What organisations can take from it

Never enforce recommended retail prices with supply stops or sanctions – sales teams need clear rules on this.

Relevance to training and awareness

Price requirements imposed on retailers in sales

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

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

Report an error

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

24 Sep 2026 M&J GroupCMA: fines against construction firm and two employees for concealing evidence during an inspection United KingdomCartels and collusion €58,149

During an inspection as part of an investigation into bid rigging, the Estimating Director Barry Pirrie instructed the Office Manager Tracey Woods to remove a work mobile phone and documents from the premises, and denied having a work mobile phone. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed fines of 25,000 GBP on M&J, 20,000 GBP on Pirrie and 5,000 GBP on Woods.

What organisations can take from it

Dawn raid training is mandatory: anyone who removes mobile phones or documents during an inspection is personally liable – even when acting on a superior's instructions.

Relevance to training and awareness

Correct conduct during inspections (dawn raids), no removal of evidence

Authority / court
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Section 40A(1) Competition Act 1998
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Construction and real estate
Culpability
intentional
Liability of senior managers
Personal fines against Barry Pirrie (20,000 GBP) and Tracey Woods (5,000 GBP)
Published
24 Sep 2026

Original amount 50,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 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.

24 Sep 2026 Kalibrate Canada (Tochter der Kalibrate Technologies Ltd.)Canada: Kalibrate must stop sharing retailer-specific petrol station data CanadaAbuse of market power Order

Kalibrate's "Market Intelligence" product passed on retailer-specific sales data from petrol stations that allowed conclusions to be drawn about competitors and could facilitate coordinated pricing behaviour. In an agreement registered with the Competition Tribunal, Kalibrate undertakes to supply only aggregated and time-delayed data – the first case under the reformed abuse of dominance rules.

What organisations can take from it

Providers of market and price data must ensure that their products do not disseminate individualised competitor data.

Authority / court
Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement beim Competition Tribunal)
Area of law
Competition law · Abuse of market power
Legal basis
Abuse-of-dominance-Bestimmungen des Competition Act (Fassung 2023)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Energy and utilities
Published
24 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.

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.

26 Aug 2026 O2 Czech Republic a.s.; SHERLOG Technology, a.s.O2 Czech Republic and SHERLOG: 280 million CZK for customer allocation in vehicle tracking CzechiaCartels and collusion €11.7m

From December 2012 to June 2022, the two companies allocated customers for vehicle tracking and electronic logbook services between themselves and coordinated bids, including in public tenders. At first instance, the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) fined O2 262.32 million CZK and SHERLOG 18.357 million CZK and imposed a six-month ban on public contracts; for O2, the fine was increased instead of a procurement ban.

What organisations can take from it

Do not let sales cooperation with competitors turn into customer allocation – e-mail arrangements about individual tenders are the typical evidence.

Relevance to training and awareness

Coordination with cooperation partners on customers and tenders

Authority / court
Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV (S0255/2023)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Telecoms, IT and software
Culpability
intentional
Published
26 Aug 2026

Original amount 280,677,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 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.

26 Aug 2026 Wolt DenmarkWolt: Competition Council finds abuse of dominant position vis-à-vis restaurants DenmarkAbuse of market power Order

In 2022–2024, the delivery service used a standard clause to prohibit restaurants from being cheaper on their own channels than on Wolt, while at the same time being able to grant discounts without consultation and to compensate customers up to 400 DKK at the restaurants’ expense. The Konkurrencerådet (Danish Competition Council) ordered the practice to cease, required Wolt to inform all restaurants and intends to enforce a fine through the courts.

What organisations can take from it

Platforms with a high market share should have parity clauses and unilateral cost shifting in standard terms reviewed under competition law.

Authority / court
Konkurrencerådet (Danish Competition Council)
Area of law
Competition law · Abuse of market power
Legal basis
Konkurrenceloven; AEUV Art. 102
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Media and online platforms
Published
26 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.

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.

19 Aug 2026 Sioux Erosion Control Inc.DOJ: jury convicts erosion control firm of price fixing in Oklahoma road construction USACartels and collusion —

A jury found Sioux Erosion Control, co-owner BG Dale Biscoe and employee Randall David Shelton guilty of having fixed prices for erosion control services, allocated contracts regionally and rigged bids on publicly funded road construction projects in Oklahoma (more than 100 million USD) from 2017 to 2023. Sentencing was still pending.

What organisations can take from it

Subcontractors in public road construction are also targeted by prosecutors – up to and including jury convictions of individual employees.

Relevance to training and awareness

Price-fixing and territorial agreements for subcontracted services in road construction

Authority / court
U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Section 1 Sherman Act
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Construction and real estate
Liability of senior managers
Guilty verdict against co-owner BG Dale Biscoe and employee Randall David Shelton
Published
20 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.

17 Aug 2026 Pluxee Česká republika a.s.; Edenred CZ s.r.o.; Up Česká republika s.r.o.Meal voucher cartel: 279 million CZK against Pluxee, Edenred and Up upheld with final effect CzechiaCartels and collusion €11.5m

From 2004 to 2018, the three issuers of paper meal vouchers coordinated with retail chains how many vouchers would be accepted per purchase. The President of the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) dismissed the appeals against the recalculation of the fines: Pluxee 132.271 million, Edenred 101.94 million and Up 44.941 million CZK, a total of 279.152 million CZK.

What organisations can take from it

Coordinating seemingly technical conditions such as acceptance limits is also a cartel – industry discussions need clear boundaries.

Relevance to training and awareness

Coordination of terms and conditions among competitors

Authority / court
Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV (R0112/2025)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
intentional
Published
17 Aug 2026

Original amount 279,152,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 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.

14 Aug 2026 Henkel AG & Co. KGaAHenkel/Liquid Nails: court blocks takeover of Loctite’s main competitor USAMerger control 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.

What organisations can take from it

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

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 2026 „О-Рент“ ЕООД (sowie „Инжконсулт“ ЕООД und „Земекоп“ ЕООД)Construction machinery cartel: fine for O-Rent, compliance programme for all participants BulgariaCartels and collusion €2,403

The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found a cartel in public tenders for mining and construction machinery (price fixing and market sharing, Art. 15 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act, Art. 101 TFEU). Inzhkonsult and Zemekop, as a single undertaking, were exempted from the fine; O-Rent received a sanction of 2,403.07 EUR. All three companies must introduce a competition law compliance programme within 60 days and report on it.

What organisations can take from it

The authority now expressly requires compliance programmes – anyone bidding in tenders should have one before it is ordered.

Relevance to training and awareness

Competition law in tenders; compliance programme

Authority / court
Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Art. 15 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 ZZK; Art. 101 Abs. 1 lit. a und c AEUV
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Construction and real estate
Mitigating circumstances
Immunity from fines for two participants (leniency programme)
Published
20 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.

7 Aug 2026 Hair-Line Kft.Hair-Line: 68.5 million HUF for price and territorial restrictions on hairdressing supplies HungaryCartels and collusion €187,929

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.

What organisations can take from it

Commercial agent systems with territorial protection must not restrict resale prices or passive sales either.

Relevance to training and awareness

Price and territorial restrictions in the distribution system

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Ungarisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Verbot wettbewerbsbeschränkender Vereinbarungen (VJ/17/2022)
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 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

6 Aug 2026 AS Asphaltstraßensanierung GmbH, BITUNOVA GmbH, Kutter Spezialstraßenbau GmbH & Co. KG, Possehl Construction GmbH (inkl. VSI), Liesen…alles für den Bau GmbH, OAT GmbH/Otto Alte-Teigeler GmbHBundeskartellamt: 60.3 million EUR against DSK road repair cartel GermanyCartels and collusion €60.3m

From around 2010 to September 2019, six suppliers of thin cold-laid asphalt surface layers (Dünne Asphaltdeckschichten in Kaltbauweise, DSK) allocated customers – primarily public contracting authorities – and contracts among themselves nationwide and coordinated prices. Germany's Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) imposed fines of around 60.3 million EUR; all proceedings ended in settlements.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone who "shares out" public contracts regionally risks fines running into millions – calculations and bids must always be prepared independently.

Relevance to training and awareness

Customer allocation and bid rigging in public contracts

Authority / court
Bundeskartellamt
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
§ 1 GWB, Art. 101 AEUV
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Construction and real estate
Mitigating circumstances
Leniency bonus for Possehl/VSI, Bitunova, Kutter and AS; settlement
Published
6 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.

4 Aug 2026 AS "Latvijas valsts meži"7.86 million EUR against Latvijas valsts meži for breach of competitive neutrality LatviaCompetition law €7.86m

From 2020 to April 2026, on the basis of old long-term logging contracts, the state forestry group supplied six wood processors with guaranteed quantities of roundwood outside public auctions, while all others could only buy through auctions. In its first decision on the competitive neutrality of public undertakings, the Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) imposed 7,859,606.89 EUR and required equal sales conditions for all qualified bidders.

What organisations can take from it

State-owned companies must allocate resources without discrimination – review historical special contracts regularly for competitive neutrality.

Authority / court
Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)
Area of law
Competition law
Legal basis
Art. 14.1 Konkurences likums (Wettbewerbsneutralität)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Public sector
Published
13 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.

21 Jul 2026 Maxxis International GmbH, Best4Tires Berlin GmbH, Reifen Müller GmbH & Co. KGBundeskartellamt: 11.9 million EUR over resale price maintenance in tyre distribution (Maxxis/CST) GermanyCartels and collusion €11.9m

Maxxis guaranteed wholesalers fixed margins per tyre sold of the Maxxis and CST brands, monitored prices in particular on the Tyre24 platform and intervened when prices were too low. Germany's Federal Cartel Office (Bundeskartellamt) imposed fines totalling 11.9 million EUR on three companies and one responsible individual.

What organisations can take from it

Margin guarantees and price controls vis-à-vis dealers constitute prohibited resale price maintenance – sales teams need clear rules for price discussions.

Relevance to training and awareness

Influencing resale prices and price monitoring on platforms

Authority / court
Bundeskartellamt
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
§ 1 GWB (vertikale Preisbindung)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Automotive
Mitigating circumstances
Settlement with Maxxis and Reifen Müller
Liability of senior managers
Fine imposed on one responsible natural person (not named)
Published
21 Jul 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.

15 Jul 2026 CalPlus GmbH, Elektronik-Kontor Messtechnik GmbH, TVW Meßtechnik GmbHBundeskartellamt: 453,000 EUR against distributors of test and measuring equipment GermanyCartels and collusion €453,000

From 2016 to 2022, three distributors of test and measuring equipment coordinated discounts as essential price components and informed each other of customer contacts, usually with a request for "restraint". This was evidenced by more than 400 emails; the proceedings ended in settlements.

What organisations can take from it

Small distributors are liable too: merely asking a competitor to "hold back" with a customer is a prohibited customer allocation agreement.

Relevance to training and awareness

Email contacts with competitors about customers and discounts

Authority / court
Bundeskartellamt
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
§ 1 GWB
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Manufacturing and mechanical engineering
Mitigating circumstances
Settlement; cooperation by Elektronik-Kontor Messtechnik taken into account
Published
15 Jul 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 Jun 2026 Самостоятелна медико-диагностична лаборатория „Лина“ ЕООДLaboratory Lina lures customers with free blood tests – 52,097 EUR for unfair competition BulgariaCompetition law €52,097

On application by its competitor Ramus, the Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) established that the laboratory had offered packages of medical laboratory tests free of charge nationwide over extended periods (only against a fee of 2 leva for taking blood) – conduct shown by no other market participant outside joint campaigns. It found an infringement of the general clause of unfair competition law (Art. 29 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) and imposed 0.3% of 2024 turnover, i.e. 52,096.55 EUR. Appeals have been lodged against the decision.

What organisations can take from it

Permanent free offers to win customers can be unfair if they deviate significantly from market practice and drive out competitors.

Authority / court
Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)
Area of law
Competition law
Legal basis
Art. 29 ZZK (Generalklausel unlauterer Wettbewerb)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Healthcare
Published
2 Jul 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.

24 Jun 2026 Kaufland Hrvatska k.d.Croatia: 300,000 EUR against Kaufland for unfair practices towards suppliers CroatiaAbuse of market power €300,000

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).

What organisations can take from it

Purchasing departments must know the payment deadlines and fee prohibitions of UTP law – repeat offences become significantly more expensive.

Relevance to training and awareness

Fair terms towards suppliers in purchasing

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

Report an error

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

Load 20 more of 79

Ready for training that sticks?

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

Start free trial