Who was sanctioned, and for what?

From January 2013 to March 2022, the distributor of premium pet food and pet supplies imposed minimum resale prices on its retailers and threatened sanctions if they were undercut. In a settlement procedure, the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed 36.438 million CZK; the company ended the conduct after the inspection and introduced a compliance programme.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Verbot vertikaler Preisbindung (tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Termination immediately after the inspection, information of customers about free pricing, full cooperation, settlement and newly introduced compliance programme.

Published

24 Sep 2026

Original amount 36,438,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

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

Authority / court

Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement beim Competition Tribunal)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Abuse-of-dominance-Bestimmungen des Competition Act (Fassung 2023)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Published

24 Sep 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Carioca Christiani-Nielsen Engenharia S.A. concluded a single settlement (Termo de Compromisso de Cessação) with the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE, Brazilian competition authority) covering four proceedings concerning alleged collusion in public tenders for infrastructure projects (metro, airports operated by Infraero, the rail company CPTM and the transport authority DNIT). The company admitted its participation, allegedly pays 6,134,676.92 BRL in instalments to the Fund for Diffuse Rights (FDD) and waives court and administrative disputes on these matters. Together with the company’s earlier settlements with CADE, its contributions exceed 90 million BRL.

Authority / court

Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Lei nº 12.529/2011 (Lei de Defesa da Concorrência), Termo de Compromisso de Cessação

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

22 Sep 2026

Original amount 6,134,676.92 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Empire Company Limited, parent company of grocery banners such as Sobeys, Farm Boy, Safeway, IGA, Foodland, FreshCo, Marché Bonichoix and Les Marchés Tradition, reached an agreement with the Competition Bureau on its use of property controls in the Canadian grocery sector. The Commissioner of Competition filed it with the Competition Tribunal as a registered consent agreement on 22 September 2026. In June 2026 the Bureau had obtained court orders to advance its investigation into these property controls.

Authority / court

Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement, registriert beim Competition Tribunal)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Competition Act; beim Competition Tribunal registriertes Consent Agreement (Paragraf in den zugänglichen Quellen nicht genannt)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

22 Sep 2026

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

From July 2021 to July 2024, the state forestry company contractually prohibited a customer from actively and passively exporting wood chips and logging residues and secured the ban with a right of termination. The Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) considered this a restriction of competition by object under Czech and EU law and imposed 17.268 million CZK (first instance, not final).

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV (Exportverbot)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

Voluntary termination immediately after proceedings were opened.

Published

17 Sep 2026

Original amount 17,268,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

According to the KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission, Korea's competition authority), six manufacturers and distributors of printing paper fixed in advance the winning bidder, cover bidders and bid prices in six tenders issued by the publisher Nongmin News Corp. between June 2021 and November 2024; the average winning bid rate was around 96.2%, compared with 87.6% in 2018 to 2020. The KFTC issued corrective orders, imposed fines totalling KRW 3,009 million (Moorim SP KRW 59 million, Moorim Paper KRW 573 million, Moorim P&P KRW 948 million, Hansol Paper KRW 556 million, Hankuk Paper KRW 515 million, Hongwon Paper KRW 358 million).

Authority / court

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 40 Abs. 1 Nr. 8 MRFTA (Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Published

9 Sep 2026

Original amount 3,009,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The Tribunal of the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE, Brazilian competition authority) unanimously found that Cervejaria Petrópolis had taken control of the oil producer Imcopa before the legally required notification (gun jumping) and imposed a fine of 1,382,418.22 BRL. According to the investigation, the acquisition was completed on 19 March 2024 but notified only on 9 April 2024; CADE itself cleared the transaction without conditions in April 2024. The argument that the change of control resulted from court decisions in the judicial reorganisation proceedings (recuperação judicial) did not persuade the authority. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), Tribunal Administrativo

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Art. 88 § 3 Lei nº 12.529/2011 (Lei de Defesa da Concorrência)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Published

8 Sep 2026

Original amount 1,382,418.22 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Culpability

intentional

Published

26 Aug 2026

Original amount 280,677,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Aug 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

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

Authority / court

Konkurrencerådet (Danish Competition Council)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Konkurrenceloven; AEUV Art. 102

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

26 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

As a buyer with significant bargaining power, the company from Solin purchased agricultural and food products from two suppliers without written contracts. The Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (Croatian Competition Agency, AZTN) considered this an unfair trading practice and, taking mitigating circumstances into account, imposed 10,000 EUR (date = publication).

Authority / court

Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (AZTN)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Zakon o zabrani nepoštenih trgovačkih praksi u lancu opskrbe hranom (ZNTP)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

Several mitigating circumstances taken into account

Published

25 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Konkurransetilsynet (Norwegian Competition Authority) made commitments offered by KLP binding and thereby closed its investigation into a possible abuse of a dominant position in public occupational pensions for municipalities. The authority was concerned that, from 2019, when a competitor entered the market, KLP had systematically discouraged municipalities from putting their occupational pension schemes out to tender; KLP now undertakes to refrain from such influence and to remedy the effects of its earlier practice. No infringement was conclusively established and no fine was imposed.

Authority / court

Konkurransetilsynet

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

§ 12 Abs. 3 i. V. m. § 11 konkurranseloven; Art. 54 EWR-Abkommen

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

2 Sep 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

A jury found Sioux Erosion Control guilty of having fixed prices for erosion control services, allocated contracts regionally and rigged bids on publicly funded road construction projects in Oklahoma (more than 100 million USD) from 2017 to 2023. Sentencing was still pending; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Justice, Antitrust Division

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Section 1 Sherman Act

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

20 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Direct link

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

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

intentional

Published

17 Aug 2026

Original amount 279,152,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Aug 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

Henkel wanted to buy the construction adhesive brand Liquid Nails for 725 million USD from the financial investor American Industrial Partners, thereby taking over the main competitor of its Loctite brand. After a seven-day trial, the federal court, on application by the Federal Trade Commission (FTC), issued a permanent injunction against the acquisition.

Authority / court

U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York (auf Antrag der FTC)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Section 7 Clayton Act; Section 13(b) FTC Act (Permanent Injunction)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Chemicals and pharmaceuticals

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

17 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 15 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2 ZZK; Art. 101 Abs. 1 lit. a und c AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Immunity from fines for two participants (leniency programme)

Published

20 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In 2018–2022, the distributor of professional hairdressing products (Alfaparf, Yellow) determined the prices at which its territorial representatives were allowed to sell to salons and retailers and restricted passive sales outside the territories. Under a settlement and with a commitment to a compliance programme, the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed 68.5 million HUF.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Ungarisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Verbot wettbewerbsbeschränkender Vereinbarungen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation, acknowledgement in the settlement and commitment to a comprehensive compliance programme.

Published

7 Aug 2026

Original amount 68,500,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 Aug 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

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.

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 GWB, Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency bonus for Possehl/VSI, Bitunova, Kutter and AS; settlement

Published

6 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

From May 2024, in social media videos (campaign ‘Създавай! Не копирай!’), the company falsely accused a competing family business for hot chillies of having stolen its business, ideas and concept, and promoted the clips partly through paid advertising. The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) regarded this as unfair damage to reputation (Art. 30 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act), imposed 4% of 2025 net turnover (500,555 EUR), i.e. 20,022 EUR, and ordered immediate cessation. Appeals have been lodged against the decision.

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Art. 30 ZZK (Schädigung des guten Rufs eines Wettbewerbers)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Food and agriculture

Published

19 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Art. 14.1 Konkurences likums (Wettbewerbsneutralität)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Public sector

Published

13 Aug 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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).

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

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.

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 GWB

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement; cooperation by Elektronik-Kontor Messtechnik taken into account

Published

15 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

At the request of the press association Alliance de la Presse d’Information Générale (APIG), the Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) imposed interim measures on Meta because its conduct in negotiations on remuneration for press publishers’ neighbouring rights could amount to an abuse of a dominant position. Meta must negotiate in good faith on remuneration for all Meta services from 1 February 2025, provide the information needed for the assessment within 15 days, must not degrade the display of press content during the negotiations and must report to the authority monthly. On the same day a similar decision (26-MC-02) was issued at the request of the collective management organisation DVP.

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. L. 464-1 Code de commerce (mesures conservatoires); vorläufige Würdigung nach Art. L. 420-2 Code de commerce und Art. 102 AEUV; Art. L. 218-4 Code de la propriété intellectuelle

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

8 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In cartel proceedings, the CADE Tribunal fined ten suppliers of electronic products, while the signatories of a 2014 leniency agreement (Agilent and Keysight) and one company that had fulfilled a settlement were not sanctioned. The fines on the companies initially totalled 8,362,138.05 BRL; in the virtual deliberation procedure the plenary, deciding on motions for clarification (embargos) on 17 August 2026, reduced of its own motion the fines on Datasonic (from 4,329,605.69 to 856,937.12 BRL) and D.T.I. (from 1,021,750.18 to 265,406.99 BRL), leaving 4,133,126.29 BRL. The session minutes do not identify the market concerned. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), Tribunal Administrativo

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Lei nº 12.529/2011

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

8 Jul 2026

Original amount 4,133,126.29 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Art. 29 ZZK (Generalklausel unlauterer Wettbewerb)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Healthcare

Published

2 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (Croatian Competition Agency, AZTN) found that Kaufland Hrvatska charged food suppliers fees for services not provided and for advertising not commissioned, and paid for perishable goods only after more than 30 days. For these unfair trading practices, and with repeat offending as an aggravating factor (final penalty already in 2020), it imposed 300,000 EUR (date = publication).

Authority / court

Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (AZTN)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 4, 11, 12 Zakon o zabrani nepoštenih trgovačkih praksi u lancu opskrbe hranom (ZNTP)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Repeat case

yes

Published

24 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

On 17 June 2026 the Competition Commission (Hong Kong's competition authority) accepted a commitment from Kangaroo Limited, which operates the Keeta food delivery platform in Hong Kong and is a subsidiary of Meituan. The authority was concerned that clauses in Keeta's agreements with partner restaurants made access harder for new and small platforms and softened competition – a possible breach of the First Conduct Rule (the ban on anti-competitive agreements). Keeta had already amended the agreements voluntarily (cooperation with platforms of up to 10% market share without losing incentives, easier switching, no bar on lower prices on the restaurants' own channels and on rival platforms); with the acceptance, these changes are legally binding and enforceable by the authority until 28 December 2026.

Authority / court

Competition Commission (Hongkong)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619), s. 6 (First Conduct Rule); Annahme einer Verpflichtungszusage nach s. 60

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

17 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

The Tribunal of the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE, Brazilian competition authority) unanimously fined Denso Corporation 100,787,523.05 BRL for taking part in an international cartel in wire harnesses and electrical and electronic automotive components with effects in Brazil. According to the rapporteur’s vote, Denso took part in price fixing, the allocation of projects, geographic market sharing and the exchange of sensitive information roughly between 2000 and 2008. For other participants the proceedings ended through leniency, settlements or for lack of evidence; CADE dismissed Denso’s motion for clarification (embargos) in August 2026. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), Tribunal Administrativo

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Lei nº 12.529/2011 (Lei de Defesa da Concorrência)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

10 Jun 2026

Original amount 100,787,523.05 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The European Commission ordered Meta to restore access for rival general-purpose AI assistants to the WhatsApp for Business interface on the terms in place before 15 October 2025, i.e. free of charge, and to maintain it until the final decision. The Commission found a prima facie abuse of a dominant position in consumer communication apps, because Meta had first excluded third-party assistants and later charged a fee with practically the same effect; the measures had to be implemented within five working days.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV; Art. 54 EWR-Abkommen; Art. 8 Abs. 1 VO (EG) Nr. 1/2003

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

9 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

With the support of a consultancy, the three largest pay-TV providers agreed from 2019 to May 2025 to introduce advertising as a condition for accessing recordings and to standardise the marketing of this advertising space. The Autoridade da Concorrência (Portuguese Competition Authority, AdC) imposed 8,181,000 EUR on three companies; together with the fourth participant, already sanctioned earlier under a settlement, the fines add up to 13,351,000 EUR. Owing to ongoing court proceedings, the AdC did not publish the names in its announcement.

Authority / court

Autoridade da Concorrência (AdC)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Lei da Concorrência (Lei n.º 19/2012), Art. 9.º (Processo PRC/2020/4)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

5 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The importer and wholesaler of the Vans, Eastpak and The North Face brands contractually prohibited its retailers from using price comparison portals and search engine advertising (in particular Google Ads). The Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission) regarded this as a hardcore restriction in online sales and, in a settlement procedure (Decision 913/2026), set a reduced fine of 954,485 EUR; date = press release.

Authority / court

Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 1 Gesetz 3959/2011; Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 4 lit. e VO (EU) 2022/720

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure (Diettheti Diaforon) with fine reduction

Published

3 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The non-profit hospital group Ascension wanted to acquire AmSurg for 3.9 billion USD. Owing to overlaps in outpatient surgery in five regions, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) requires the sale of seven AmSurg centres to SC Affiliates and a gastroenterology practice, as well as transitional support.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Section 7 Clayton Act; Section 5 FTC Act (Consent Order)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Healthcare

Employees

10,000 or more

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

In September 2024 three construction companies coordinated their bid prices and decided the winner in a civil engineering tender of the municipality of Ommen, which was awarded for 153,250 EUR. Because of earlier cartel infringements by the companies or their legal predecessors established in 2005, the ACM (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, Dutch competition and consumer authority) increased the fines by 20%. In the simplified procedure it imposed allegedly 30,000 EUR on Timmerhuis and allegedly 15,500 EUR on Bouwhuis (45,500 EUR in total); Van Gelder, as first leniency applicant, was not fined.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 Mededingingswet

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

For cooperating in the simplified procedure, the ACM reduced the fines of Bouwhuis and Timmerhuis by 15%, and that of Timmerhuis by a further 5% for evidence provided voluntarily; Van Gelder, as first applicant, received full leniency immunity.

Published

2 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The CADE Tribunal convicted three companies of a buyer cartel in the purchase of animal residues in Rio Grande do Sul: according to CADE, rendering plants and haulage companies divided collection points among themselves, exchanged sensitive information and obstructed competitors outside the arrangement. Frigorífico Cason received 5,937,915.73 BRL and the two ASM companies jointly 455,419.65 BRL (6,393,335.38 BRL in total); proceedings against several other parties were closed because settlements had been fulfilled or for lack of evidence. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), Tribunal Administrativo

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Lei nº 12.529/2011

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

29 May 2026

Original amount 6,393,335.38 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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).

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

The planned acquisition of GrainsConnect by Parrish & Heimbecker would have reduced competition for the purchase of wheat from farmers around Reford (Saskatchewan). The Competition Bureau reached an agreement under which P&H must divest the grain elevator in Reford to an approved buyer and continue to operate it normally until then.

Authority / court

Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement beim Competition Tribunal)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Competition Act (Kanada), Fusionskontrolle

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Published

22 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to the KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission, Korea's competition authority), seven flour manufacturers with a combined 87.7% of the B2B market coordinated, on 24 occasions between November 2019 and October 2025, the timing and extent of price changes as well as supply volumes and supply rankings towards large buyers such as noodle and confectionery manufacturers, including while receiving government price stabilisation subsidies. In addition to a cease-and-desist order, the KFTC ordered an independent re-determination of prices and imposed fines totalling KRW 671,045 million, the highest amount in any cartel case to date: Sajo DongAOne KRW 183,097 million, Daehan Flour Mills KRW 179,273 million, CJ CheilJedang KRW 131,701 million, Samyang KRW 94,787 million, Daesun Flour Mills KRW 38,448 million, Hantop KRW 24,291 million, Samhwa Flour Mills KRW 19,448 million.

Authority / court

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 40 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und Nr. 3 MRFTA (Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Repeat case

yes

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

20 May 2026

Original amount 671,045,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The CADE Tribunal convicted three petrol station companies because in 2017 they had divided the lots of municipal fuel tenders in Coronel Vivida (Paraná) among themselves in advance and had also coordinated retail pump prices. The fines on the companies initially totalled 43,953,905.42 BRL (Comércio de Combustíveis Stang 25,801,726.15; a further petrol station company 9,406,784.68; Pato Comércio de Combustíveis 8,745,394.59 BRL). On motions for clarification (embargos) the Tribunal reduced, on 1 July 2026, the fines on Stang to 4,615,849.76 BRL and on Pato to 1,090,682.28 BRL owing to a subsequently arising fact relevant to the calculation, leaving 15,113,316.72 BRL. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE), Tribunal Administrativo

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Lei nº 12.529/2011; Art. 38 VI (Handelsverbot für natürliche Personen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Energy and utilities

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

13 May 2026

Original amount 15,113,316.72 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

For more than ten years from 2012, the distributor and retailer of consumer electronics and household appliances set minimum resale prices for its retail customers, monitored them and sanctioned deviations. The Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed 38.971 million CZK; a leniency application, settlement and an improved compliance programme reduced the fine, and the company appealed against the amount.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency application, settlement and expansion of the internal compliance programme.

Published

6 May 2026

Original amount 38,971,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The manufacturer Decora and the wholesaler Bel-Pol had coordinated prices for vinyl panels, underlays, skirting boards and floor profiles from Decora's range and divided the wholesale market for these products. UOKiK imposed fines of PLN 28,344,000 on Decora and PLN 5,290,000 on Bel-Pol, PLN 33,634,000 in total. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 3 ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów; Art. 101 Abs. 1 lit. a und c AEUV; Art. 106 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 und 2, Art. 113c und Art. 89a ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

As a leniency applicant, Bel-Pol received a 50% reduction of its fine and a further 10% for voluntarily accepting the fine (settlement).

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Original amount 33,634,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

On application by a client, the Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found that VMZ had used technical documentation on disposable grenade launchers that had been provided in confidence (trade secret) contrary to the confidentiality agreements and good commercial practice (Art. 37(1) ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act). Sanction of 50,855.09 EUR and obligation to cease, with immediate enforceability. Appeals have been lodged against the decision.

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Art. 37 Abs. 1 ZZK (Geschäftsgeheimnisse)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Defence and security

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

In a secret, continuing agreement, three manufacturers of salty snacks and crisps divided up among themselves the supply of private-label snacks to food retailers. Fines: Amica Chips 8,239,210 EUR, Pata 7,555,387 EUR, Preziosi Food 7,503,550 EUR; this was the first time Italy's competition authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, AGCM) applied its settlement procedure.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 14-quater Gesetz 287/1990 (Settlement)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency reduction for Pata and Amica Chips; 10 % settlement discount for all

Published

28 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Four laboratories and their association coordinated negotiations on prices with health insurers, coordinated in tenders, exchanged sensitive information and allocated customers. At first instance, the Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, PMÚ SR) imposed 14,551,800 EUR and three-year procurement bans; Unilabs received a substantially reduced fine as leniency applicant and under a settlement.

Authority / court

Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (PMÚ SR)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Slowakisches Wettbewerbsschutzgesetz (Kartellverbot)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Healthcare

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Unilabs: leniency reduction (50%) and settlement (a further 30%).

Published

12 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Through the association Synadis Bio, market participants ensured for more than seven years that organic brands were not sold simultaneously in specialist organic shops and in conventional supermarkets, in order to prevent price comparisons (decision 26-D-05). Fines: Synadis Bio 10 million EUR, Greenweez/Carrefour 1.85 million EUR, ITM 740,000 EUR, Les Comptoirs de la Bio 80,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. L.420-1 Code de commerce, Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; Bußgeldbemessung nach Art. L.464-2 Code de commerce

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Food and agriculture

Published

16 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

From 13 May 2015 to 20 November 2023, Nexans granted companies of the Sonepar group exclusive rights to import Nexans cables into La Réunion, Mayotte, French Guiana, Martinique and Guadeloupe, which Art. L. 420-2-1 of the Code de commerce (French Commercial Code) prohibits for the overseas territories. In a settlement procedure the Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) imposed EUR 3 million on Nexans France (jointly with Nexans SA) and EUR 3.5 million on the Sonepar companies involved, EUR 6.5 million in total. It is the authority’s first decision based on a report by a person with protected whistleblower status.

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. L. 420-2-1 Code de commerce; Vergleichsverfahren nach Art. L. 464-2 III Code de commerce

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure (transaction): the companies did not contest the objections.

Published

2 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

According to the decision of the Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council), the distributor Rickman Trade set the resale prices for JURA coffee machines for retailers, while EUGESTA and Innocent PRO monitored and maintained those prices at retail level in order to secure a uniform price level in Latvia. Fines: Rickman Trade OÜ with its Latvian branch 255,938.04 EUR, EUGESTA 232,636.20 EUR and Innocent PRO, after a 10 % settlement reduction, 23,525.93 EUR, totalling 512,100.17 EUR.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 11 Abs. 1 Konkurences likums (Wettbewerbsgesetz)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Innocent PRO received a 10 % reduction following a settlement offer.

Published

7 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The Konkurrensverket (Swedish Competition Authority) found that Mavera AB abuses its dominant position by applying, since 1 January 2021, exclusivity clauses in contracts with companies providing insurance medical advice that prohibit advising competing businesses. The authority imposed a competition damages fee (konkurrensskadeavgift) of 14,300,000 SEK and ordered the company to stop applying the clauses and to inform its contractual partners within six weeks; the order is backed by a conditional fine (vite) of 30,000,000 SEK. Mavera has appealed to the Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Patent and Market Court). The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Konkurrensverket

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

2 kap. 7 § konkurrenslagen (2008:579); Art. 102 AEUV; 3 kap. 1 § och 3 kap. 5 § första stycket 1 KL

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

19 Mar 2026

Original amount 14,300,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Mar 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The telecoms infrastructure company Míla hf. admitted in a settlement with Samkeppniseftirlitið (Icelandic Competition Authority) that from October 2023 to December 2024 it had breached the conditions of the September 2022 settlement on its acquisition by Ardian: the frequency and scope of its contacts with Síminn were liable to weaken Síminn's incentive to buy wholesale services from Míla's competitors beyond its contractual purchase obligation. Míla pays a fine of 200,000,000 ISK and accepts additional conditions; at the same time, some conditions were limited, owing to changed market conditions, to areas where Míla has significant market power.

Authority / court

Samkeppniseftirlitið

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Verstoß gegen Fusionsauflagen (Art. 4 und 8 eines früheren Vergleichs); Vergleich nach Art. 17f Abs. 1 Samkeppnislög Nr. 44/2005 (isländisches Wettbewerbsgesetz)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

19 Mar 2026

Original amount 200,000,000 ISK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Mar 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The AGCM found that, within its selective distribution system for jewellery and watches, Morellato set its retailers' online resale prices and prohibited them from using third-party marketplaces and intermediation platforms from 20 July 2018 to 23 December 2025; by way of retaliation, Morellato blocked orders (Art. 101(1) TFEU). The fine amounts to 25,895,043 EUR.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; Art. 15 Legge n. 287/1990

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Because treating the marketplace ban as a restriction of competition was novel, the AGCM calculated the fine solely on the basis of the online resale price maintenance.

Published

31 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

From 12 May 2006 to 4 February 2025, the model agreement of France’s largest ski instructors’ union prohibited instructors of the Écoles du Ski Français from teaching for competing ski schools or their own clients and threatened exclusion for breaches; the Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) regarded this as a restriction of competition by object on the market for ski tuition. It imposed EUR 3.4 million, for the first time in an ordinary procedure calculated on the basis of the members’ turnover, and ordered the union to amend the rules, publish the decision and, if it cannot pay, call on its members for contributions.

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; Art. L. 420-1 Code de commerce; Bemessung nach Art. L. 464-2 Code de commerce (Umsetzung der ECN+-Richtlinie)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Other

Published

17 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

From 1987 to March 2025, the association of temporary work agencies (around 40 members) obliged its members in its code of ethics not to poach each other’s temporary workers. The Autoridade da Concorrência (Portuguese Competition Authority, AdC) regarded this as an anticompetitive decision by an association in the labour market and imposed 4,519,000 EUR, calculated on the basis of the members’ turnover; the decision can be appealed (date = press release).

Authority / court

Autoridade da Concorrência (AdC)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Lei da Concorrência (Lei n.º 19/2012), Art. 9.º

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Published

12 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

In May 2022, without seeking clearance, Alderson Logistics and its associated company Supa Shavings (2022) acquired the businesses of the two largest suppliers of bulk wood shavings used as bedding by chicken and goat farmers in the Waikato, which together held a market share of at least 70 to 80% and were each other's closest competitors. Following a settlement with the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's competition regulator), the High Court imposed an allegedly agreed penalty of 420,000 NZD jointly against both for breaching the prohibition on acquisitions in s 47 of the Commerce Act. It was the first time the Commission had also sought divestment where a breach was admitted; the divestment did not succeed.

Authority / court

High Court Auckland (Klage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Commerce Act 1986, s 47

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Published

9 Mar 2026

Original amount 420,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Mar 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Two importers of dog and cat food monitored their retailers’ consumer prices on price comparison portals and asked them to adjust them to their price lists; the retailers complied. In a settlement procedure (Decision 901/2026), the Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission) imposed 387,498 EUR on KOMPA and 95,000 EUR on Happy Dog; the case began with a tip-off via the authority’s anonymous whistleblowing platform.

Authority / court

Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 1 Gesetz 3959/2011; Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure with reduced fines

Published

6 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

From March 2020 to May 2021, the operator of ss.lv/ss.com (market share over 60%) deleted advertisements and blocked accounts of users – mainly car dealers and estate agents – who also advertised on the competing platform pp.lv; anyone wishing to register with an inbox.lv address additionally had to provide a different e-mail address. The Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) considered this an abuse of a dominant position (Art. 102 TFEU), imposed 186,780.65 EUR and required objective criteria for dealing with customers.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

18 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

In 2021 the courier company concluded an agreement with a competitor acting as reseller that allocated customers and fixed prices, and gave effect to the non-compete clause on one occasion; the wording had been copied from an older Fastway template. In civil proceedings brought by the Commerce Commission (ComCom, New Zealand's competition authority), the High Court on 4 March 2026 approved the jointly proposed penalty, allegedly of 700,000 NZD (starting point 1 million NZD, 30% reduction).

Authority / court

High Court Auckland (Klage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Commerce Act 1986, s 30

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

No previous warnings or contraventions, voluntary provision of documents and interviews, early admission and remorse, new agreements without the clause and a new competition law compliance programme in New Zealand and Australia.

Liability of senior managers

The agreement was prepared from a template by the national sales manager; a more senior employee signed it without reviewing its content.

Published

4 Mar 2026

Original amount 700,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Mar 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

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.

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.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link