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: 2,033 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 authority- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission) €1.85m 100 % · 8 cases
What for?
by topicWho?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q4 2023 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2025 | 2 | €97,803 |
| Q2 2025 | 1 | €236,068 |
| Q3 2025 | 1 | €1.46m |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2026 | 1 | €52,689 |
| Q2 2026 | 3 | €3,124 |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
8 cases
25 Aug 2025 FirstRand Bank Ltd (WesBank); Toyota Financial Services South Africa Ltd; Toyota Motor Corporation u. a. (6 Unternehmen)Competition Tribunal: WesBank and Toyota companies allegedly pay ZAR 30m over non-compete clause €1.46m
According to the Competition Commission, a non-compete clause in the 2000 shareholders' agreement of Toyota Financial Services South Africa (TFSSA), in which WesBank holds a one-third stake, obliged the parties not to compete with each other in financing Toyota vehicles; WesBank therefore referred customers' finance requests to TFSSA (market division). In a settlement without admission of liability, the restraint is relaxed so that WesBank may provide finance quotes to retail customers and dealers at their request, and the six parties (FirstRand Bank, its division WesBank, TFSSA, Toyota Motor Corporation, Toyota Financial Services (UK), Toyota South Africa) allegedly pay ZAR 30m jointly or severally. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.
Non-compete clauses in joint venture shareholders' agreements should be reviewed regularly, as they can deprive customers of a choice between providers.
Non-compete clauses in joint ventures and customer freedom of choice
- 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. 4(1)(b)(ii); ss. 49D, 58(1)(b)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement without admission of liability to end protracted proceedings.
- Published
- 25 Aug 2025
Original amount 30,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Aug 2025.
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Jun 2026 The South African Breweries (Pty) LtdMerger condition: SAB must recalculate employee share benefits for former staff Order
On 15 June 2026, on the basis of a settlement between the Competition Commission (competition authority), The South African Breweries (Pty) Ltd (SAB) and the trustees of the Zenzele employee share scheme, the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) ordered that allocations under the scheme be recalculated to include former SABMiller employees who had moved to the CCBSA group (Coca-Cola Beverages South Africa); the funds held back in trust since 2020 must allegedly be paid out within 30 days. The case concerned apparent non-compliance with a condition of the 2017 merger approval under which these employees were not to lose any scheme benefits because of the transaction. The Tribunal rejected objections raised on behalf of current employees.
Merger conditions – including those protecting employees – remain binding and may be enforced years later; implementing them needs clear ownership within the company.
Implementing merger conditions on employee share schemes
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Competition Act 89 of 1998: Durchsetzung der Fusionsauflage 4.6 aus LM021Apr17 über Section 27(1)(d) i. V. m. Section 16(3); Antrag nach Section 49D i. V. m. Section 58(1)(b)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
27 May 2026 Seed Bearing Fields (Pty) LtdFood supply tender: Seed Bearing Fields admits price fixing €528
On 27 May 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement in which Limpopo-based Seed Bearing Fields (Pty) Ltd admitted fixing prices with Mogodumo Bakone Holding (Pty) Ltd for a Limpopo Department of Health tender to supply perishable food. The directors of the two bidders are related; the companies shared an office and service providers and submitted strikingly similar bids. Seed Bearing Fields allegedly pays an administrative penalty of 10,044 ZAR and must attend competition law compliance training provided by the Competition Commission (competition authority).
Related companies bidding separately must not coordinate their prices – shared offices, service providers and similar documents make collusion easy to spot.
Related bidders in public tenders
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 4(1)(b)(i) und (iii) Competition Act 89 of 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
Original amount 10,044 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 May 2026.
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Apr 2026 Gwalimba Construction (Pty) LtdAlleged collusion on a government job: Gwalimba Construction allegedly pays ZAR 50,000 €2,596
On 21 April 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement with Gwalimba Construction (Pty) Ltd. Following a complaint by the Department of Home Affairs (home affairs ministry), the Competition Commission (competition authority) had found that Gwalimba and Superway Construction (Pty) Ltd agreed not to compete against each other on certain tenders – including a request for quotes for fire-compliance repair work at a government office in Pretoria. Without admitting liability, Gwalimba allegedly pays an administrative penalty of 50,000 ZAR, will cooperate in the case against Superway and will introduce a competition law compliance programme.
Even small construction firms must avoid any coordination with competitors when quoting to public bodies – authorities pursue such arrangements against small firms too.
Bid rigging in public procurement
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 4(1)(b)(i), (ii) und (iii) Competition Act 89 of 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- According to the parties: cooperation with the authority, a small firm with no previous contraventions, and it did not win the contract.
- Published
- 23 Apr 2026
Original amount 50,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Apr 2026.
- Competition Tribunal: Press Release: Tribunal confirms settlement of alleged collusion by Gwalimba Construction in public sector collusive tendering case (23.04.2026) Court press release
- Competition Tribunal, CO107Oct25, Order confirming consent agreement Competition Commission v Gwalimba Construction (Pty) Ltd, decided 21.04.2026 Court decision
- Competition Tribunal case file CO107Oct25 (Order date 2026-04-21; sections 4(1)(b)(i), (ii), (iii)) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Feb 2026 Wilmar SA (Pty) LtdEdible oils case: Wilmar SA allegedly pays ZAR 1m and commits to public-interest measures €52,689
On 18 February 2026 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement between the Competition Commission (competition authority) and Wilmar SA (Pty) Ltd (formerly Wilmar Continental Edible Oils and Fats) in proceedings running since 2016 over alleged price fixing and – added later – market division in edible oils, baking fats and margarine. Without admitting a contravention, Wilmar allegedly pays 1,000,000 ZAR and commits to public-interest measures worth 49.5 million ZAR over five years, including bursaries, school infrastructure including eradicating pit latrines, and a fund for small businesses; it also undertakes a compliance programme and investment commitments.
Settlements with South Africa's competition authority can include public-interest commitments many times larger than the payment itself – this belongs in any risk assessment.
Price fixing in the food industry
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 4(1)(b)(i) und/oder (ii) Competition Act 89 of 1998 (Vorwurf, ohne Anerkenntnis)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 18 Feb 2026
Original amount 1,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Feb 2026.
- Competition Tribunal: Competition Tribunal confirms settlement in edible oils alleged price-fixing matter (18.02.2026) Court press release
- Competition Commission: The Commission welcomes Tribunal confirmation of the settlement agreement concluded with Wilmar SA (Pty) Ltd (24.02.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 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
4 Mar 2025 Vermont Sales (Pty) LtdCompetition Tribunal: allegedly ZAR 900,000 against Vermont Sales over discount cap for dealers €46,020
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.
Rules on advertised price levels or maximum discount rates imposed on dealers can also amount to prohibited resale price maintenance.
Discount rules and advertising restrictions for dealers
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- 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
Report an error
17 Feb 2025 DH Brothers Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a WillowtonCompetition Tribunal: Willowton allegedly pays ZAR 1m and commits ZAR 100m to public-interest measures €51,783
In 2016 the Competition Commission investigated several edible oil producers over alleged price fixing and market division; the Willowton Group challenged the investigation in court for years and no findings were made. Under the confirmed settlement, Willowton allegedly pays ZAR 1m without admitting liability and commits to public-interest measures of ZAR 100m over five years (20m education trust, 30m food donations, 50m procurement from B-BBEE companies) as well as a compliance programme.
Even without an established infringement, competition proceedings can end with substantial payment and public-interest commitments; an effective compliance programme is better protection than years of litigation.
Handling competition investigations and settlement options
- 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. 4(1)(b)(i) und (ii); ss. 49D, 58(1)(b)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- No admission of liability and no findings by the Commission; pragmatic settlement after lengthy litigation.
- Published
- 17 Feb 2025
Original amount 1,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Feb 2025.
- Competition Tribunal, CO155Jan25: Order confirming consent agreement, Competition Commission v DH Brothers Industries (Pty) Ltd t/a Willowton (17.02.2025) Court decision
- Competition Tribunal greenlights R101m settlement with Willowton Group over price fixing and market division allegations (17.02.2025) Court press release
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link