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 countryWhat for?
by topicWho?
by sectorAll sectors
- Construction and real estate €142.8m 33 % · 13 cases
- Retail and e-commerce €119.9m 28 % · 5 cases
- Food and agriculture €62.6m 14 % · 4 cases
- Steel and metals €51m 12 % · 2 cases
- Telecoms, IT and software €19.4m 4 % · 4 cases
- Automotive €15m 3 % · 2 cases
- Transport, logistics and shipping €9.3m 2 % · 4 cases
- Energy and utilities €7.36m 2 % · 3 cases
- Manufacturing and mechanical engineering €5.27m 1 % · 5 cases
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals €645,231 0 % · 1 case
- 3 more€882,929
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 4 | €46.3m |
| 2023 | 10 | €119m |
| 2024 | 13 | €43.5m |
| 2025 | 16 | €164.3m |
| 2026 | 7 | €61m |
50 cases
13 Aug 2026 Apple Inc., Apple GmbHBundeskartellamt: Apple aligns tracking prompts for its own and third-party apps Order
The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) declared binding commitments by Apple on its App Tracking Transparency Framework (ATTF), closing its proceedings under Section 19a(2) of the German Competition Act (GWB) and Article 102 TFEU. According to the preliminary assessment, third-party apps had to obtain, for personalised advertising, an additional and more off-putting consent prompt prescribed by Apple, while Apple used a prompt of its own for its own services; in future the prompts will be aligned so that content, wording and design are neutral, and app providers will be able to combine the required prompts more easily.
Platform privacy rules must be equally strict for a company's own and third-party services, otherwise they become a competition problem themselves.
Equal treatment of own and third-party services in consent prompts
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- § 19a Abs. 2 GWB, Art. 102 AEUV (Verpflichtungszusagen, Az. B7-54/25)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Telecoms, IT and software
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 17 Aug 2026
- Bundeskartellamt: Apple ändert Regeln für personalisierte Werbung in Apps (17.08.2026) Press release of an authority
- Bundeskartellamt, Beschluss B7-54/25 vom 13.08.2026 (öffentliche Version) Decision of an authority
- Bundeskartellamt, Entscheidungsdatenbank: B7-54/25, Verpflichtungszusagen, Entscheidungsdatum 13.08.2026 Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
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 €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.
Anyone who "shares out" public contracts regionally risks fines running into millions – calculations and bids must always be prepared independently.
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
- Bußgelder wegen Kartellabsprachen im Bereich Straßenreparatur mit DSK Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Jul 2026 Maxxis International GmbH, Best4Tires Berlin GmbH, Reifen Müller GmbH & Co. KGBundeskartellamt: fines over resale price maintenance in tyre distribution (Maxxis/CST) Fine
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 on Maxxis and two tyre wholesalers that had pushed for the margin guarantees; at the time of publication the decisions were not final (an objection to the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf was possible).
Margin guarantees and price controls vis-à-vis dealers constitute prohibited resale price maintenance – sales teams need clear rules for price discussions.
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
- Published
- 21 Jul 2026
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Jul 2026 CalPlus GmbH, Elektronik-Kontor Messtechnik GmbH, TVW Meßtechnik GmbHBundeskartellamt: 453,000 EUR against distributors of test and measuring equipment €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.
Small distributors are liable too: merely asking a competitor to "hold back" with a customer is a prohibited customer allocation agreement.
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
- Bundeskartellamt verhängt Bußgelder wegen Preisabsprachen beim Vertrieb von Prüf- und Messgeräten Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Mar 2026 Killer GmbH & Co KG, Killer GmbHWaste cartel: €278,000 fine on waste firm Killer despite leniency status €278,000
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Killer GmbH & Co KG and Killer GmbH allegedly 278,000 EUR for taking part in the nationwide waste management cartel from July 2002 to March 2021, mainly in Lower and Upper Austria and occasionally in Tyrol. The participants fixed prices, shared territories and customers and exchanged competitively sensitive information, including in tenders for waste collection. The fine was reduced because of leniency status and the consensual termination of the proceedings.
A leniency application made only after a dawn raid can reduce a fine but will not necessarily waive it; companies should investigate suspicions internally at an early stage.
Territorial and customer allocation in regional markets
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Reduction for cooperation under the leniency programme and the consensual termination of the proceedings.
- Published
- 15 Sep 2026
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Feb 2026 Check24 GmbHBundeskartellamt: Check24 drops best-price clauses towards energy suppliers Order
The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) declared binding commitments by Check24 GmbH under which the comparison website gives up price parity clauses when brokering electricity and gas contracts: energy suppliers may offer their tariffs more cheaply via other websites and their own sales channels without the contractual relationship, commission or ranking depending on it (no 'dimming'). In its preliminary assessment the authority had concerns under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and Sections 1, 19 and 20 of the German Competition Act (GWB).
Leading brokerage platforms should avoid best-price clauses; indirect levers such as a worse ranking also count as parity requirements.
Best-price and parity clauses in brokerage contracts
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- § 32b Abs. 1 GWB (Verpflichtungszusagen); Bedenken nach Art. 101, 102 AEUV, §§ 1, 19, 20 GWB (Az. B8-40/25)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 24 Feb 2026
- Check24 verpflichtet sich zur Aufgabe von Preisparitätsklauseln gegenüber Energieversorgern (24.02.2026) Press release of an authority
- Bundeskartellamt, Beschluss B8-40/25 vom 18.02.2026 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Feb 2026 Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon EU S.à r.l.Bundeskartellamt bans Amazon price controls and orders disgorgement of around 59 million EUR Disgorgement of profits
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).
A platform operator that also sells on its platform must not steer sellers' prices through visibility sanctions and risks having the resulting benefits disgorged.
Platform operators interfering in sellers' pricing
- 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
Report an error
15 Dec 2025 Aktiengesellschaft Hallenstadion Zürich (AGH); Ticketcorner AGWEKO fines Hallenstadion Zurich and Ticketcorner over ticketing clause €122,929
At the end of 2008 Aktiengesellschaft Hallenstadion Zürich and Ticketcorner AG agreed that the arena would only be let to organisers selling at least 50% of tickets through Ticketcorner, which hindered other ticketing providers. After the Federal Supreme Court found a competition-law infringement in 2020 and remitted the case (2C_113/2017), the Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO, Swiss Competition Commission) classed both companies' conduct in 2009 to 2011 as abuse of a dominant position and, by decision of 15 December 2025, fined the Hallenstadion around CHF 50,000 and Ticketcorner around CHF 65,000. The arena operator had concluded an amicable settlement; the decision can be appealed to the Federal Administrative Court.
Exclusivity clauses between strong market players remain a competition risk, even if the proceedings only end years later.
Exclusivity clauses and tying by dominant undertakings
- Authority / court
- Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- Kartellgesetz (KG): Missbrauch einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung; Rückweisung BGer 2C_113/2017 vom 12.02.2020
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Mitigating circumstances
- The arena operator concluded an amicable settlement with WEKO.
- Published
- 22 Jan 2026
Original amount 115,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Dec 2025.
- WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 22.01.2026: WEKO büsst Hallenstadion und Ticketcorner Press release of an authority
- Newsroom-Schnittstelle der Bundesverwaltung: Volltext der WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 22.01.2026 (weko_13429) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
10 Dec 2025 Lech-Stahlwerke GmbHDüsseldorf Higher Regional Court: 21 million EUR fine on Lech-Stahlwerke for price fixing €21m
The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) fined Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH 21 million EUR for unlawful price fixing and the exchange of competitively sensitive information. This followed a negotiated agreement setting a fine range of 20 to 30 million EUR, after which the company limited its objection against the Bundeskartellamt's (Federal Cartel Office) fining decision of 27 January 2021 to the penalty; the proceedings against BGH Edelstahlwerke GmbH continue separately.
An objection to a cartel fine can end years later in a court-imposed fine running into millions; a negotiated agreement brings predictability, not acquittal.
Price fixing and exchange of sensitive information
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 1. Kartellsenat (Urteil nach Einspruch gegen Bußgeldbescheid des Bundeskartellamts)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Kartellordnungswidrigkeit (Preisabsprachen, Informationsaustausch); Az. V-1 OWi OLG 1/24 (GWB)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Steel and metals
- Mitigating circumstances
- Negotiated agreement with the objection limited to the penalty; the court found an unlawful delay of one year and seven months in the authority's intermediate procedure.
- Published
- 19 Dec 2025
- OLG Düsseldorf: Urteil gegen Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH (19.12.2025) Court press release
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Nov 2025 Rethmann SE & Co. KG (Rethmann-Gruppe, u. a. Remondis)Bundeskartellamt: Rethmann Group must notify future acquisitions for three years Order
Applying Section 32f(2) of the German Competition Act (GWB) for the first time, the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) required Rethmann SE & Co. KG and its affiliated companies (the Rethmann Group, which includes Remondis) to notify for three years before completion even mergers below the general turnover thresholds, where the target generates more than 1 million EUR in domestic turnover and at least 100,000 EUR in the collection of non-hazardous municipal waste or the processing of hollow glass. The decision builds on the findings of the sector inquiry into municipal waste completed at the end of 2023; it was not yet final when announced.
Market leaders in regionally defined markets must expect that even small acquisitions below the turnover thresholds may become notifiable.
Merger control obligations for small acquisitions
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- § 32f Abs. 2 GWB (Az. B5-31/24)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Published
- 24 Nov 2025
- Bundeskartellamt verpflichtet Rethmann-Gruppe zur Anmeldung künftiger Zusammenschlüsse (24.11.2025) Press release of an authority
- Bundeskartellamt, Beschluss B5-31/24 vom 21.11.2025 (Verfügung gem. § 32f Abs. 2 GWB, öffentliche Version) Decision of an authority
- Bundeskartellamt: Veröffentlichte Entscheidung – Anmeldeverpflichtung der Rethmann-Gruppe nach § 32f Abs. 2 GWB (Entscheidung vom 21.11.2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 Nov 2025 Pfanner Schutzbekleidung GmbH, Protos GmbH, Pronocer Holding GmbH (vormals Holding-AG der Gruppe)Pfanner: €400,000 fine for resale price maintenance in workwear trade €400,000
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Pfanner Schutzbekleidung GmbH, Protos GmbH and their holding company (now Pronocer Holding GmbH) 400,000 EUR because, from 9 March 2016 to 25 November 2021, they fixed their dealers' resale prices for work and protective clothing in Austria. Compliance was monitored systematically, dealers who deviated were contacted, and in 2019 a circular reminded all dealers of the prices. Reductions were granted for the settlement, cooperation and a newly introduced compliance system.
Circulars urging dealers to keep to prices are direct evidence of resale price maintenance and should be legally reviewed before they are sent.
Resale price maintenance towards dealers
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs. 1 und 4 KartG und Art. 101 AEUV; § 29 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Manufacturing and mechanical engineering
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Consensual termination of the proceedings, cooperation with the BWB (Federal Competition Authority), introduction of a compliance system.
- Published
- 18 Sep 2026
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Sep 2025 Bauunternehmung Pusiol GmbHConstruction cartel: €130,000 on civil engineering firm Pusiol, losses considered €130,000
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Bauunternehmung Pusiol GmbH, a subsidiary of Steiner Baugesellschaft m.b.H., allegedly 130,000 EUR for taking part in the construction cartel in Lower Austria from July 2002 to August 2016 (price fixing, market sharing and information exchange in civil engineering tenders). The BWB (Federal Competition Authority) set the fine lower because of the company's limited financial capacity, as it reported annual losses in 2023 and 2024; the company gave a full acknowledgement.
Collusion from long ago is still punished; a strained financial position can reduce the fine but cannot avert it.
Bid rigging in tenders
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Limited financial capacity (losses in 2023 and 2024); full acknowledgement.
- Published
- 4 Mar 2026
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Aug 2025 PAUPE HOLDING SA, Bitusag S.A., Bitusag Neuchâtel SA, Wyss Fils SA, Prodo SA, Duckert SAWEKO fines road maintenance firms in Jura/Neuchâtel over bid rigging Fine
Regional suppliers of surface treatments and chip sealing in road maintenance colluded on bids and allocated territories. Switzerland's Competition Commission (Wettbewerbskommission, WEKO) imposed sanctions on Bitusag/Paupe (jointly and severally, CHF 640,000–990,000, exact amount redacted), Wyss Fils (CHF 44,000–74,000), Prodo (CHF 760) and Duckert (CHF 0) and approved amicable settlements; the investigation against Colas Suisse was discontinued.
Small regional road builders are also sanctioned – cover bids and territorial protection must disappear from corporate culture.
Cover bids and territorial agreements in regional road construction
- Authority / court
- Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 5 Abs. 3 i.V.m. Abs. 1 KG, Art. 49a Abs. 1 KG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- Amicable settlements; leniency programme (Duckert free of sanctions)
- Enduits superficiels et gravillonnage : Décision du 25 août 2025 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Jul 2025 Markant Handels- und Industriewaren-Vermittlungs AG und 16 Händlerinnen (in der Quelle nicht namentlich genannt)WEKO fines 16 retailers in the Markant buying cooperation around CHF 28 million €29.9m
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.
Buying cooperations may pool negotiating power, but payments to members must be disclosed to suppliers and must not be enforced through collective pressure.
Buying cooperations in retail: limits of joint negotiating power
- 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.
- WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 08.07.2025: WEKO schafft Praxis zu Einkaufskooperationen Press release of an authority
- Newsroom-Schnittstelle der Bundesverwaltung: Volltext der WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 08.07.2025 (weko_5848) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
5 Jun 2025 MAGEBA Gesellschaft m.b.H.; Maurer SE, Maurer Söhne Ges. mbH (nur Feststellung)Bridge component suppliers: €400,000 fine on MAGEBA, leniency applicant Maurer not fined €400,000
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined MAGEBA Gesellschaft m.b.H. 400,000 EUR because, from November 2017 to December 2018, it shared customers for road expansion joints and bridge bearings in Austria with a competitor and exchanged information on pricing behaviour. Against Maurer SE and Maurer Söhne Ges. mbH the court merely declared the infringement because of their leniency status. A compliance system introduced in the course of cooperation was taken into account in mitigation, and intent in a hardcore restriction as an aggravating factor.
The first to report a cartel can escape a fine entirely, while those who wait pay; this argues for internal reporting channels and quick decisions on a leniency application.
Customer allocation and the leniency programme
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs. 1 KartG; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a KartG; § 28 Abs. 1 und 1a Z 1 KartG (Feststellung gegenüber Kronzeugin)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Only five projects over about 13 months, no enrichment established, low-level information exchange, the group's economic difficulties, compliance system introduced in the course of cooperation.
- Published
- 18 Nov 2025
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
13 May 2025 AS Asphaltstraßensanierung, BITUNOVA, Mainka u. a. (Straßenerhaltungskartell, 7 Unternehmen)Bundeskartellamt: 10.5 million EUR against seven road repair companies €10.5m
From 2016 to 2019, seven road repair companies allocated contracting authorities regionally, determined in advance who should win the contract and set each other minimum prices for cover bids. The Bundeskartellamt imposed fines of 10.5 million EUR; BITUNOVA cooperated as leniency applicant, and all proceedings ended in settlements. Addressees: AS Asphaltstraßensanierung GmbH, bausion Strassenbau-Produkte GmbH, BITUNOVA GmbH, Gerhard Herbers GmbH, Liesen … alles für den Bau GmbH, Mainka GmbH Straßenunterhaltung, MOT Müritzer Oberflächentechnik GmbH.
Cover bids are not only subject to fines but, for the employees involved, a criminal offence of bid rigging.
Cover bids and territorial agreements in tenders
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 GWB
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- Leniency programme (BITUNOVA), settlement
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Published
- 13 May 2025
- Kartellabsprachen zwischen Straßenreparatur-Unternehmen Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
7 May 2025 Sennheiser electronic SE & Co. KG, Sonova Consumer Hearing Sales Germany GmbHBundeskartellamt: fines against Sennheiser and Sonova over resale price maintenance Fine
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.
Price monitoring software is no licence: anyone who responds to deviations by putting pressure on dealers is engaging in prohibited resale price maintenance.
Price discussions with dealers and price monitoring
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- 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
- Bundeskartellamt verhängt Bußgelder gegen Audioprodukte-Hersteller Sennheiser und Sonova Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · 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
9 Apr 2025 Alphabet Inc. (Google)Bundeskartellamt: Google commitments on Automotive Services and Google Maps Platform Order
In two decisions under Section 19a of the German Competition Act (GWB), the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) declared commitments by Google binding: the services in Google Automotive Services (Maps, Play, Assistant) will in future also be licensed to car manufacturers individually, incentive clauses such as advertising revenue sharing and default settings will be dropped, and interoperability with other providers will be ensured. For the Google Maps Platform, contractual restrictions on combining it with other providers' map services are lifted; the commitments on Automotive Services apply to cars registered in Germany and, owing to uniform EU registration rules, to the European market, while those on the Maps Platform apply at least to licensees with a billing address in the EEA.
Tying and exclusivity incentives in platform services are under scrutiny under Section 19a GWB; individually licensable, interoperable offerings reduce the risk.
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- § 19a GWB (für bindend erklärte Verpflichtungszusagen; Az. B7-25/22)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Telecoms, IT and software
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 9 Apr 2025
- Bundeskartellamt: Google muss Wettbewerbsbeschränkungen bei Google Automotive Services und bei der Google Maps Platform abstellen (09.04.2025) Press release of an authority
- Bundeskartellamt: Verfahren gegen große Digitalkonzerne auf der Basis von § 19a GWB (Stand September 2026) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Apr 2025 Securitas Sicherheitsdienstleistungen GmbH, Securitas ABSecuritas: €540,000 fine for collusion in tenders for security services €540,000
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) imposed a fine of 540,000 EUR, jointly and severally, on Securitas Sicherheitsdienstleistungen GmbH and Securitas AB. From August 2019 to December 2022, an employee coordinated prices and strategic information with a competitor in three private tenders for manned security services. The Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde (BWB, Federal Competition Authority) granted a reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings.
Even a few coordinated bids in private tenders are enough for a fine; sales teams need clear rules on contacts with competitors.
Information exchange with competitors in tenders
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs. 1 KartG; § 29 Z 1 lit. a KartG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 1,000 to 9,999
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings.
- Published
- 12 Feb 2026
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link