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 Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission) €8.93m 100 % · 16 cases
What for?
by topicWho?
by sectorAll sectors
- Financial services and insurance €3.63m 41 % · 2 cases
- Transport, logistics and shipping €1.94m 22 % · 1 case
- Manufacturing and mechanical engineering €1.79m 20 % · 2 cases
- Food and agriculture €895,502 10 % · 5 cases
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals €236,068 3 % · 1 case
- Retail and e-commerce €228,814 3 % · 2 cases
- Media and online platforms €211,657 2 % · 2 cases
- Construction and real estate €2,596 0 % · 1 case
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | €77,886 |
| 2023 | 3 | €3.14m |
| 2024 | 4 | €3.86m |
| 2025 | 4 | €1.79m |
| 2026 | 4 | €55,813 |
16 cases
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
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
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
Report an error
14 Aug 2024 a South African packaging paper manufacturerCompetition Tribunal: packaging paper manufacturer pays ZAR 21.3m over collusion allegations €1.07m
According to the Competition Commission's investigation, the manufacturer and a competitor had agreed since around 1998 not to compete for each other's traditional customers for packaging paper, coordinated bids and met regularly for that purpose; they also allegedly fixed prices when buying recyclable paper. In a settlement without admission of liability, the manufacturer pays ZAR 21,298,478.38 in three instalments and introduces a compliance programme.
Where companies are both suppliers and competitors, discussions must stay strictly confined to the supply relationship; agreements about 'traditional' customers amount to customer allocation.
Customer allocation and bid coordination between suppliers and competitors
- 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), (ii) und (iii); ss. 49D, 58(1)(a)(iii), 58(1)(b)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Manufacturing and mechanical engineering
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement without admission of liability; payment in instalments.
- Published
- 14 Aug 2024
Original amount 21,298,478.38 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Aug 2024.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 14 Aug 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Jul 2024 a Dutch manufacturer of inverters and chargersCompetition Tribunal: ZAR 14.2m against inverter maker over online resale price maintenance €718,378
The Dutch manufacturer of inverters and chargers allegedly ensured through its distributors, from March 2020 until at least the end of 2022, that online retailers granted no more than 10–15% discount on recommended retail prices, under threat of reduced discounts or cut-off of supply (minimum resale price maintenance). In a settlement without admission of liability, the manufacturer pays ZAR 14,232,581 and must introduce a compliance programme including training on resale price maintenance.
A price recommendation described as non-binding becomes prohibited resale price maintenance as soon as discount limits are enforced with threats concerning supply or terms.
Recommended retail prices and discount limits imposed on resellers
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
- Manufacturing and mechanical engineering
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement without admission of liability; the manufacturer pointed to the lack of after-sales support with cut-price offers.
- Published
- 17 Sep 2024
Original amount 14,232,581 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Jul 2024.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 26 Jul 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Mar 2024 two South African removal companiesRemovals cartel: two South African removal companies pay ZAR 40m over cover quotes €1.94m
On 18 March 2024 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement in which two removal companies, subsidiaries of a transport group, admitted involvement in a cartel based on cover quotes; it affected jobs for government departments, large companies and private customers, with the alleged conduct running from 2007 to at least 2012. One company faced 649 and the other 37 instances; both are jointly and severally liable for an administrative penalty of 40,000,000 ZAR. As part of the settlement, the Competition Commission (competition authority) agreed to withdraw its case against a sister company.
Cover quotes submitted to let a competitor win are bid rigging – even many small individual jobs add up to heavy penalties.
Bid rigging and cover quotes
- 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
- Transport, logistics and shipping
- Published
- 20 Mar 2024
Original amount 40,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Mar 2024.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 18 Mar 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
13 Feb 2024 a South African outdoor advertising companyCompetition Tribunal: ZAR 2.7m against outdoor advertiser over industry code of practice €133,771
According to the Competition Commission, members of an outdoor advertising association set uniform cancellation fees (75% of the remaining contract), credits for sub-standard illumination, charges for late delivery of material and fees for removing posters in a code of practice from around 2004 to 2018 (fixing of prices and trading conditions). In a settlement without admission of liability, the outdoor advertising division of a media company pays ZAR 2,717,950 in twelve instalments and provides free advertising worth ZAR 1,358,976 to ten small businesses owned by historically disadvantaged persons.
An association code that sets fees and contract terms for all members can amount to price fixing; association work must be subject to competition law oversight.
Cartel risks in trade associations and industry codes
- 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); ss. 49D, 58(1)(a)(iii), 58(1)(b)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement without admission of liability; payment in instalments.
- Published
- 13 Feb 2024
Original amount 2,717,950 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Feb 2024.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 13 Feb 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Nov 2023 an international major bankUSD/ZAR forex cartel: international major bank pays ZAR 42.7m and cooperates €2.17m
On 15 November 2023 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement in which an international major bank admitted taking part between 2007 and 2013 in price fixing and market allocation in spot trading of the USD/ZAR currency pair, for example by coordinating bids and offers via chat platforms. The bank pays an administrative penalty of 42,715,880 ZAR, will continue its compliance programme and will provide evidence to the Competition Commission (competition authority) in its prosecution of the other banks among the 28 accused.
Chats between traders at competing banks about prices and spreads carry a high competition law risk and belong in trading-floor surveillance and training.
Competition law on trading desks: contacts between traders at competing banks
- 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 (ii) Competition Act 89 of 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 15 Nov 2023
Original amount 42,715,880 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Nov 2023.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 15 Nov 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Oct 2023 a South African consumer goods manufacturerCompetition Tribunal: consumer goods manufacturer pays ZAR 16m in market division settlement €790,502
According to the Competition Commission, the sale and supply agreements concluded with a buyer in 2004/2005 contained restrictive covenants until around 2012 that barred the buyer from certain pack sizes and customer channels for edible fats and oils (market division). Without admitting liability, the manufacturer pays an administrative penalty of ZAR 16m, sets up a compliance programme and additionally commits to an enterprise development fund for black-owned businesses of ZAR 40m, more local procurement and donations of hygiene products to schools worth ZAR 3m.
Non-compete clauses in the sale of business units must be reviewed under competition law, because customer and product restrictions between potential competitors can amount to market division.
Non-compete clauses in business sale and supply agreements
- 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)(a)(iii), 58(1)(b)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement without admission of liability; the manufacturer considered the restrictions to be permissible vertical restraints.
- Published
- 9 Oct 2023
Original amount 16,000,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Oct 2023.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 3 Oct 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Apr 2023 two South African companies in a supply partnershipExcessive hand sanitiser prices charged to the police: ZAR 3.55m penalty €182,794
On 3 April 2023 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) found that a supplier of occupational health products, acting within a partnership with an investment company, had charged the South African Police Service excessive prices for 10,000 containers of hand sanitiser (25 litres each) supplied in April 2020 during the COVID-19 pandemic – 3,550 ZAR per container including VAT, more than double the National Treasury list price at the time. In the Tribunal's view the pandemic gave the reseller market power; the excess profit exceeded 9 million ZAR. Both companies are jointly and severally liable for an administrative penalty of 3,550,000 ZAR.
In a crisis even a small reseller can hold market power – mark-ups charged to public buyers must be justifiable by costs.
Pricing in crises and in public procurement
- 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)(a) Competition Act 89 of 1998 (Preishöhenmissbrauch/excessive pricing; Beweislast nach Section 8(2))
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- First offence; in the Tribunal's view the aggravating factors (exploiting the pandemic) clearly outweighed it.
- Published
- 3 Apr 2023
Original amount 3,550,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Apr 2023.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 3 Apr 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
14 Nov 2022 a South African outdoor advertising companyAdvertising cartel: outdoor media firm pays penalty for coordinated agency discounts €77,886
On 14 November 2022 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement in which a media company admitted price fixing: media companies had agreed, through a common industry body, on similar settlement discounts and payment terms for advertising agencies and used a common intermediary to risk-assess the agencies. The company pays an administrative penalty of 1,389,438 ZAR, contributes a further 500,198 ZAR to a fund supporting small Black-owned media and advertising agencies and will cooperate in the continuing proceedings; on the company's behalf, a corporate group will give such agencies bonus advertising space worth up to 1,000,000 ZAR a year for three years.
Discounts and payment terms agreed through an industry body are still price fixing – each company must set its customer terms independently.
Competition law: common terms set through industry associations
- 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) Competition Act 89 of 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 17 Nov 2022
Original amount 1,389,438 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Nov 2022.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 14 Nov 2024 · Direct link