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 authority- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) €437.6m 92 % · 15 cases
- Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) €39m 8 % · 1 case
- Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) €178,654 0 % · 1 case
What for?
by topicWho?
by sectorAll sectors
- Construction and real estate €180.7m 38 % · 3 cases
- Financial services and insurance €126.4m 27 % · 2 cases
- Automotive €92.9m 19 % · 2 cases
- Energy and utilities €39m 8 % · 1 case
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals €29.2m 6 % · 2 cases
- Media and online platforms €5.06m 1 % · 1 case
- Retail and e-commerce €3.46m 1 % · 2 cases
- Food and agriculture €29,885 0 % · 2 cases
- Manufacturing and mechanical engineering – 0 % · 1 case
- Transport, logistics and shipping – 0 % · 1 case
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2 | €2.46m |
| 2023 | 3 | €68.2m |
| 2024 | 3 | €40.8m |
| 2025 | 8 | €365.2m |
| 2026 | 1 | €29,075 |
17 cases
24 Sep 2026 M&J GroupCMA: fine against construction firm for concealing evidence during an inspection €29,075
During an inspection as part of an investigation into bid rigging, a work mobile phone and documents were removed from the premises on the instructions of a manager, and possession of a work mobile phone was denied. The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed a fine of 25,000 GBP on M&J.
Dawn raid training is mandatory: removing mobile phones or documents during an inspection obstructs the investigation, even when acting on instructions.
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
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Published
- 24 Sep 2026
Original amount 25,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Sep 2026.
- CMA, Pressemitteilung zu M&J Group (Entscheidung 2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Dec 2025 Greencore Group plcGreencore/Bakkavor: takeover only with sale of sauce plant in Bristol 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.
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
- CMA case page: Greencore / Bakkavor merger inquiry Official register or notice
- CMA: Decision on acceptance of undertakings in lieu of reference (ME/2257/25), 17.12.2025 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Oct 2025 Barratt Redrow, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey u. a. (7 Wohnungsbauunternehmen)CMA: seven housebuilders pay GBP 100m after suspected information exchange €113.6m
The CMA accepted binding commitments from Barratt Redrow, Bellway, Berkeley, Bloor Homes, Persimmon, Taylor Wimpey and Vistry after investigating whether they had exchanged competitively sensitive information such as achieved sale prices. The companies committed to stop sharing such information, introduce compliance measures and annual competition law training, help develop industry guidance and jointly pay GBP 100m to affordable housing programmes; no infringement was found.
Even exchanging current sale prices with competitors can trigger a competition investigation and large payments; contacts with competitors need clear rules and training.
Exchanging pricing and sales information with competitors
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Chapter I prohibition Competition Act 1998 (Verdacht); Verpflichtungszusagen nach section 31A Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Published
- 30 Oct 2025
Original amount 100,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Oct 2025.
- CMA case page: Investigation into suspected anti-competitive conduct by housebuilders Enforcement database of an authority
- CMA: Decision to accept commitments in relation to suspected anti-competitive conduct by certain housebuilders, Case 51392 (30 October 2025) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Aug 2025 GXO Logistics, Inc. und Wincanton LimitedGXO/Wincanton: supermarket warehouse logistics must be sold after takeover Order
GXO had already acquired Wincanton in April 2024; the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed a hold-separate order, appointed a monitoring trustee and, in Phase 2, found a lessening of competition in dedicated warehousing services for grocery retail. Under the final undertakings, GXO committed to divest Wincanton’s business serving supermarket customers.
Anyone completing a deal before the merger review has concluded bears the risk of having to give up parts of the acquired business again.
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Enterprise Act 2002, ss. 41, 82, 90 (Final Undertakings)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Transport, logistics and shipping
- CMA case page: GXO / Wincanton merger inquiry Official register or notice
- CMA: Notice of acceptance of Final Undertakings (GXO / Wincanton), 26.08.2025 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Jun 2025 Safran S.A.Safran/Collins: clearance only in exchange for sale of actuation businesses Order
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) found that Safran’s acquisition of part of the actuation and flight control business of Collins Aerospace (RTX) would result in a substantial lessening of competition in horizontal stabiliser trim actuators. Clearance was granted only in return for the undertaking to divest Safran’s North American actuation business, including sites in Mexico, California and Canada, to a pre-approved purchaser (Woodward).
In acquisitions in concentrated supply markets, prepare remedies including a buyer early – here the CMA required an upfront buyer.
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Enterprise Act 2002, s. 73 (Undertakings in lieu of reference)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Manufacturing and mechanical engineering
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 23 Jun 2025
- CMA case page: Safran / Collins merger inquiry Official register or notice
- CMA: Decision on acceptance of undertakings in lieu of reference (ME/7081/23) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
23 May 2025 Vifor Pharma UK Limited u. a. (CSL-Konzern)CMA: Vifor pays GBP 23m to the NHS after suspected disparagement of a rival €27.4m
The CMA had investigated whether, between 2010 and 2024, Vifor abused a suspected dominant position in high-dose intravenous iron by spreading potentially misleading claims about the safety of the rival product Monofer compared with its own Ferinject. It accepted binding commitments: a voluntary payment of GBP 23m to the NHS, a corrective communication campaign aimed at healthcare professionals and additional compliance measures; no infringement was found.
Safety claims about competing products made to healthcare professionals must be substantiated and balanced – disparagement can be pursued as an abuse of market power.
Claims about competitor products in pharmaceutical marketing
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- Chapter II prohibition, section 18(1) Competition Act 1998 (Verdacht); Verpflichtungszusagen nach section 31A Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Published
- 23 May 2025
Original amount 23,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 May 2025.
- CMA case page: Investigation into suspected anti-competitive conduct by Vifor Pharma in relation to intravenous iron treatments Enforcement database of an authority
- CMA: Decision to accept commitments offered by Vifor in relation to the supply of high-dose intravenous iron, Case 51377 (23 May 2025) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
1 Apr 2025 Ford, Volkswagen, BMW u. a. (10 Fahrzeughersteller sowie die Verbände ACEA und SMMT)CMA: GBP 77.7m fine for carmakers over recycling and advertising collusion €92.9m
The CMA found two cartel infringements: from 2002 to 2017 the manufacturers had agreed not to advertise recyclability rates above the statutory minimum of 85%, and from 2004 to 2018 eight of them, later joined by others, had operated a buyers' cartel agreeing not to pay companies that recycle end-of-life vehicles. Under settlement, fines totalling GBP 77,688,917 were imposed: Ford 18,541,929, Volkswagen 14,755,900, BMW 11,060,925, Nissan/Renault 9,979,826 jointly plus 2,800,646 for Nissan alone, Peugeot Citroën/Stellantis 5,189,948, Vauxhall/Opel (with General Motors and Stellantis as former and current owners) 5,171,248 in total, Jaguar Land Rover 4,626,404, Toyota 4,502,760, Mitsubishi 898,531, ACEA 114,000 and SMMT 46,800 GBP. Mercedes-Benz had reported the cartel and received full immunity; the European Commission adopted its own decision for the EU on the same day.
Agreements on green advertising or purchasing terms reached in trade association meetings are still cartels – sustainability goals do not justify coordination between competitors.
Sustainability agreements and buyers' cartels in trade association meetings
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Chapter I prohibition, section 2(1) Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Automotive
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Mitigating circumstances
- 20% settlement discount for all addressees; additional leniency reductions for Peugeot Citroën and Vauxhall/Opel together with their current and former owners Stellantis and General Motors (45%), the SMMT (35%) and Mitsubishi (25%); full immunity for Mercedes-Benz as the first to report.
- Published
- 1 Apr 2025
Original amount 77,688,917 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Apr 2025.
- CMA case page: Anti-competitive conduct in relation to vehicle recycling and advertising of recycling-related information Enforcement database of an authority
- CMA press release: Car industry settles competition law case (1 April 2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Mar 2025 BT, IMG, ITV, BBC (Sky Kronzeuge)CMA: 4.24 million GBP against BT, IMG, ITV and BBC over collusion on freelancer fees €5.06m
Sports broadcasters and production companies exchanged sensitive information in 15 instances about day rates and fee increases for freelance camera operators and sound technicians in order to coordinate pay. Fines: BT 1,738,453 GBP, IMG 1,737,820 GBP, BBC 424,165 GBP, ITV 339,918 GBP; Sky received immunity as the first to come forward.
HR and the procurement of freelance work are also subject to competition law – salary and fee information must not be shared with competitors.
Exchanges about salaries and fees with competitors (labour market)
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Chapter I Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Mitigating circumstances
- 20 % settlement discount for all; leniency discounts for BT, IMG, ITV; immunity for Sky
- Published
- 21 Mar 2025
Original amount 4,240,356 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Mar 2025.
- Sports broadcast and production companies fined £4 million in freelancer pay investigation Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Feb 2025 Royal Bank of Canada, Morgan Stanley, HSBC u. a. (5 Banken; Deutsche Bank als Kronzeugin bußgeldfrei)CMA: GBP 104.46m fine for four banks over information exchange on gilts €126.2m
The CMA issued five separate decisions finding that, between 2009 and 2013, pairs of banks had exchanged competitively sensitive information on trading UK government bonds (gilts and gilt asset swaps), and in part on Debt Management Office auctions and Bank of England buy-back auctions, in bilateral Bloomberg chats between individual traders. Under settlement, Royal Bank of Canada pays 34,200,000, Morgan Stanley 29,700,000, HSBC 23,400,000 and Citi 17,160,000 GBP, GBP 104,460,000 in total; Deutsche Bank, which had reported the exchanges, was not fined.
Chats between traders at different firms are a cartel risk: even occasional exchanges of pricing and auction information can amount to a restriction of competition by object.
Information exchange between competitors in trader chats
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Chapter I prohibition, section 2(1) Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Mitigating circumstances
- Citi: 35% leniency discount and 20% settlement discount; HSBC, Morgan Stanley and RBC: 10% settlement discount. The CMA also took into account the time elapsed since the infringements ended and the banks' extensive compliance measures, some of which pre-dated the investigation.
- Published
- 21 Feb 2025
Original amount 104,460,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Feb 2025.
- CMA case page: Anti-competitive arrangements in UK government bonds Enforcement database of an authority
- CMA press release: CMA reaches settlement with banks in competition case (21 February 2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 Nov 2024 Viatris Inc.Viatris: 1.5 million GBP – key staff replaced despite hold-separate order €1.8m
During the review of the sale of the European rights to the hormone products Duphaston and Femoston to Theramex, an Initial Enforcement Order was in force. Viatris replaced members of the UK management without the consent of the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) and subsequently failed to report the breach; the CMA imposed 1.5 million GBP.
During a merger review, staffing decisions in the target business also require consent – and breaches must be reported immediately.
Standstill and interim obligations in merger proceedings (management, HR)
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Enterprise Act 2002, s. 72(2) (Initial Enforcement Order), s. 94A
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
Original amount 1,500,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Nov 2024.
- CMA: Viatris fined £1.5m for failure to comply with CMA order (22.11.2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Sep 2024 a French sugar group and its UK subsidiaryCMA: GBP 25,000 fine for sugar group over incomplete response in merger review €29,885
In the in-depth review of a merger with another sugar business, the group provided only part of the board minutes and internal governance documents requested under a formal notice under section 109 of the Enterprise Act 2002, because, in the CMA's view, it read the scope of the notice in an untenably narrow way. The CMA imposed a fine of GBP 25,000; the statutory maximum at the time was GBP 30,000.
Answer information requests in merger control in full rather than on your own narrow reading – under the DMCCA the maximum penalty rises from GBP 30,000 to up to 1% of worldwide turnover.
Responding fully to formal information requests from authorities
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- section 110 Enterprise Act 2002 (Nichtbefolgung eines Auskunftsverlangens nach section 109)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 26 Sep 2024
Original amount 25,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Sep 2024.
- CMA, Fälle (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 May 2024 a Scottish offshore wind farm companyOfgem: offshore wind farm pays GBP 33.14m over excessive constraint bids €39m
The operator of the offshore wind farm accepted that it had breached the Transmission Constraint Licence Condition by charging excessive prices in the balancing mechanism to reduce its output during grid constraints, thereby pushing up costs for consumers. Instead of a formal investigation, it paid GBP 33.14m into Ofgem's redress fund and changed its bid pricing policy; in its own view the breach was unintentional.
A generator facing little competition during grid constraints must not exploit this with excessive prices – and must review and document the compliance of its bids.
Pricing when holding market power in constraint situations
- Authority / court
- Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- Condition 20A Electricity Generation Standard Licence Conditions (Transmission Constraint Licence Condition)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Mitigating circumstances
- Admission, full cooperation and immediate change to its bid pricing policy; closed without a formal investigation.
- Published
- 28 May 2024
Original amount 33,140,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 May 2024.
- Ofgem, Bußgelder und Redress-Zahlungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 28 May 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Nov 2023 three money transfer firms in GlasgowFCA: Competition fines for three money transfer firms over price coordination in Glasgow €178,654
In a decision under the Competition Act 1998, the FCA found that between 18 February and 31 May 2017 three money transfer providers coordinated exchange rates and fixed a transaction fee for transfers to Pakistan made by customers in Glasgow branches. One of them, an intermediary without its own Glasgow branch, facilitated the conduct according to the FCA. The FCA imposed fines totalling £154,300: £139,500 on the first provider (subsidiary and parent), £11,200 on the intermediary and £3,600 on the third provider. All three admitted the infringement, received a 10% settlement discount and, according to the FCA, agreed not to appeal.
- Authority / court
- Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- section 2(1) Competition Act 1998 (Chapter I prohibition)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
Original amount 154,300 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Nov 2023.
- FCA, Final Notices (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 30 Nov 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
31 Jul 2023 an English football club and its parent companiesCMA: GBP 880,000 fine for football club over arrangement with sportswear retailer €1.03m
The CMA found that the club and a sportswear retailer agreed that the retailer would largely stop selling club clothing online in the 2018/19 season and, from the 2019/20 season until at least January 2021, would charge delivery on online orders of these items instead of offering its usual free delivery. Under settlement, a fine of GBP 880,000 was imposed on the club and its parent companies; the retailer had reported the arrangement and was not fined.
Agreements between a licensor and a retailer on sales channels or delivery terms are unlawful market sharing – distribution partnerships need a competition law review.
Market sharing in the distribution of licensed products
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Chapter I prohibition Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement discount for the club; the retailer received full leniency immunity.
- Published
- 9 Jan 2024
Original amount 880,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Jul 2023.
- CMA, Fälle (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 31 Jul 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
23 Mar 2023 ten UK demolition and asbestos removal companiesCMA: 59.3 million GBP against ten demolition and asbestos removal firms over bid rigging €67m
From 2013 to 2018, ten demolition and asbestos removal companies rigged tenders for 19 contracts worth more than 150 million GBP by means of sham bids; in some cases, winners made compensation payments and disguised them with false invoices. Highest fines: 17.57 million GBP and 16 million GBP.
Cover bidding is exposed through emails, chats and notebooks.
Sham bids (cover bidding) and concealed compensation payments
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Chapter I Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement by eight companies; leniency for two companies
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Published
- 23 Mar 2023
Original amount 59,334,957 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Mar 2023.
- CMA, Fallübersicht (Entscheidung 2023) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 5 · Company name anonymised since 23 Mar 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Dec 2022 a German car manufacturerCMA: penalty against German car manufacturer for incomplete response to an information request €34,779
In the competition proceedings concerning end-of-life vehicle recycling, the group did not fully respond to a formal information request from the CMA and disputed its jurisdiction. The CMA imposed a fixed penalty of 30,000 GBP and a daily penalty of 15,000 GBP until compliance.
Respond to information requests from competition authorities across the group, on time and in full – a jurisdictional dispute does not protect against periodic penalties.
Handling official information requests within a group
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Competition Act 1998 (Pflicht zur Beantwortung förmlicher Auskunftsverlangen)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Automotive
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 8 Dec 2022
Original amount 30,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Dec 2022.
- CMA, Fallübersicht (Entscheidung 2022) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 8 Dec 2024 · Direct link
Report an error
27 Sep 2022 a UK sportswear retailer, a replica kit manufacturer and a Scottish football clubCMA: GBP 2.17m fine for retailer, manufacturer and club over replica kit price-fixing €2.43m
The CMA found that the manufacturer and the retailer had coordinated retail prices and discounts for the club's branded clothing from September 2018 to July 2019; the club took part until mid-November 2018 in fixing the price of the adult home shirt, which the retailer then raised from 55 to 60 GBP. Under settlement, fines of GBP 1,485,000 (retailer), GBP 459,000 (manufacturer) and GBP 225,000 (club), GBP 2,169,000 in total, were imposed.
Manufacturers, licensors and retailers must not set retail prices together – not even to protect their own online shop from being undercut.
Price-fixing between manufacturer, licensor and retailer
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Chapter I prohibition Competition Act 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement discount for all three parties; additional leniency discount for the manufacturer and the retailer.
- Published
- 27 Sep 2022
Original amount 2,169,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Sep 2022.
- CMA, Fälle (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2022) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 27 Sep 2024 · Direct link