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

The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) declared binding commitments by Check24 GmbH under which the comparison website gives up price parity clauses when brokering electricity and gas contracts: energy suppliers may offer their tariffs more cheaply via other websites and their own sales channels without the contractual relationship, commission or ranking depending on it (no 'dimming'). In its preliminary assessment the authority had concerns under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and Sections 1, 19 and 20 of the German Competition Act (GWB).

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

§ 32b Abs. 1 GWB (Verpflichtungszusagen); Bedenken nach Art. 101, 102 AEUV, §§ 1, 19, 20 GWB (Az. B8-40/25)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

24 Feb 2026

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

Manufacturers and suppliers of copper and aluminium cables coordinated a common calculation of the metal surcharge, which makes up a significant part of the final price; an industry association acted as facilitator. The Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, PMÚ SR) imposed a total of 97,434,800 EUR, the highest amount in a single proceeding; two leniency applicants were not fined (not final). Addressees: ELKOND HHK, a.s.; VUKI a.s.; Prysmian Kablo s.r.o.; Prysmian Kabely, s.r.o.; Kablo Vrchlabí s.r.o.; NKT s.r.o.; PRECON s.r.o.; Tele–Fonika Kabely CZ s.r.o.; KABELOVNA KABEX a. s.; Asociace výrobců kabelů a vodičů ČR a SR (leniency applicants without a fine: ICS Industrial Cables Slovakia, PRAKAB).

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

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Culpability

intentional

Published

11 Mar 2026

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

So that bpost would obtain the state concession for newspaper delivery for 2023–2027, its competitor PPP refrained from submitting a bid and in return received additional delivery volumes from DPG Media and Mediahuis (bid rigging). In a settlement procedure, the Autorité belge de la Concurrence / Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit (Belgian Competition Authority, BMA) imposed 3,786,574 EUR (DPG Media), 7,788,423 EUR (Mediahuis) and 323,486 EUR (PPP); bpost, as leniency applicant, received full immunity.

Authority / court

Autorité belge de la Concurrence / Belgische Mededingingsautoriteit (BMA)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Code de droit économique Art. IV.1; AEUV Art. 101

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency programme (immunity for bpost; reductions of 50% and 40% for DPG Media and Mediahuis respectively) and 10% settlement reduction.

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

13 Feb 2026

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

In two tenders by ‘Vilniaus viešasis transportas’ for vehicle spare parts (May–October 2025), the dealers coordinated bids and prices, wrote the bids for each other and sent them from the same computer. The contracting entity reported the suspicion. Following acknowledgement (minus 15%), fines of 17,950 EUR (Manado) and 23,130 EUR (Parts ready). Source: archived copy of the press release.

Authority / court

Konkurencijos taryba (Litauischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Konkurencijos įstatymas (verbotene Vereinbarungen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Mitigating circumstances

Acknowledgement of the infringement (15% reduction)

Published

12 Feb 2026

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

The CADE Tribunal found that the Libra league, as a joint venture of clubs for the joint commercialisation of broadcasting and commercial rights, was notifiable and had been implemented before clearance, and approved a settlement (Acordo em APAC) with Libra and Flamengo, Palmeiras, Santos, São Paulo and Grêmio with an alleged pecuniary contribution of 559,267.26 BRL. The parties must notify the transactions already completed within 60 days and report changes to their commercialisation structures for three years; for the rival league FFU (formerly LFU) no infringement was found because the turnover thresholds were not met. 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

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

11 Feb 2026

Original amount 559,267.26 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Feb 2026.

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

The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) prohibited Amazon from steering third-party sellers' prices on amazon.de through price control mechanisms that deactivate offers deemed too expensive or exclude them from the 'Buy Box'; such mechanisms are now only permitted exceptionally, for instance in cases of price gouging, with transparent rules and notifications. At the same time, for the first time since the 2023 reform, the authority ordered disgorgement of economic benefits: for the period from 7 November 2023 to 31 December 2024 Amazon must pay around 58.8 million EUR (press release: around 59 million EUR; the exact amount is redacted in the public version).

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

§ 19a Abs. 2 S. 1 Nr. 2 GWB, § 19 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 Nr. 1 GWB, Art. 102 AEUV; Vorteilsabschöpfung nach § 34 Abs. 1 GWB (Az. B2-73/20)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Culpability

intentional

Published

5 Feb 2026

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

In a tender for industrial photovoltaic installations that was to be financed from EU Structural Funds, three bidders coordinated their bids so that a pre-selected bidder would win; the contracting entity BarCom acted as facilitator. The Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, PMÚ SR) imposed a total of 1,098,200 EUR and three-year procurement bans on all four; the EU funding was refused because of the indications of competition infringements, and the collusion was proven by e-mails secured during the inspection.

Authority / court

Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (PMÚ SR)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Slowakisches Wettbewerbsschutzgesetz (Submissionsabsprache)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Culpability

intentional

Published

11 Feb 2026

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

Since 2020, the only association of tour guides in the Azores (57 active members, around 43% of active guides) had recommended a fee table to its members by e-mail as minimum prices. Following a complaint, the Autoridade da Concorrência (Portuguese Competition Authority, AdC) imposed 8,200 EUR, taking the economic situation into account (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; Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Published

29 Jan 2026

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

The Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC, Spanish competition and markets authority) imposed a fine of 20,500,000 EUR on Repsol group companies, for which Repsol S.A. and Repsol Customer Centric are also jointly and severally liable as parent companies: between April and December 2022 Repsol used its dominant position in the wholesale supply of motor fuels to service stations to squeeze the diesel margins of independent stations by raising wholesale prices while granting additional discounts to professional drivers at its own stations. In addition, three companies are barred for six months from public tenders for the supply of diesel fuel.

Authority / court

Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 2 und Art. 62.4.b) Ley 15/2007 de Defensa de la Competencia; Art. 102 AEUV; Vergabeverbot nach Art. 71.1.b) Ley 9/2017 de Contratos del Sector Público

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

3 Feb 2026

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

The Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) found that SIA „Burde B.V.“, the only distributor in Latvia of software licences for Gatso RT4 speed cameras, charged the state-owned company CSDD, which operates the cameras under a state mandate and depended on these licences, excessive prices from September 2022 to July 2023; within six months the price rose by around 260 %. It treated this as an abuse of a dominant position and imposed 24,199.25 EUR. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 13 Abs. 1 Nr. 4 Konkurences likums (Wettbewerbsgesetz)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

4 Feb 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), the four banks exchanged their complete loan-to-value (LTV) ratios for mortgage lending over a long period, between 736 and 7,500 individual values per bank, and adjusted their own ratios accordingly; only conduct from December 2021, when the express prohibition of anti-competitive information exchange entered into force, was pursued. The KFTC issued cease-and-desist orders and fines totalling KRW 272,014 million (Kookmin KRW 69,747 million, Shinhan KRW 63,801 million, Woori KRW 51,535 million, Hana KRW 86,931 million), the first application of that provision.

Authority / court

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 40 Abs. 1 Nr. 9 MRFTA i. V. m. Art. 44 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 Durchführungsverordnung (Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

21 Jan 2026

Original amount 272,014,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jan 2026.

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

The two companies colluded in tenders of the General Health Insurance Company for the supply of medicines (2017–2020). For the first time, a cartel was uncovered on the basis of information from a whistleblower; the Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, PMÚ SR) imposed 7,595,200 EUR and a one-year procurement ban on PHOENIX and 201,800 EUR and a three-year procurement ban on TRANSMEDIC (first instance).

Authority / court

Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (PMÚ SR)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Slowakisches Wettbewerbsschutzgesetz (Submissionsabsprache)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Healthcare

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

PHOENIX: settlement with a 30% fine reduction and a shortened procurement ban.

Published

24 Feb 2026

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

From 2004 to June 2024, foundries coordinated their pricing strategies via the association Assofond: they exchanged sensitive information and developed joint indexation mechanisms ("Assofond indicators") in order to push through price increases including margins. The AGCM imposed fines of 70 million EUR (maximum around 600 million EUR), taking the crisis in the sector into account as a mitigating factor. Addressees: C2MAC Group, Fonderia Corrà, Fonderie De Riccardis, Fonderie Guido Glisenti/Lead Time, Pilenga Baldassarre/E.F. Group, Fonderie Mora Gavardo/Camozzi Group, Zanardi Fonderie, VDP Fonderia, Fonderie Ariotti, Ironcastings, Fonderia Zardo, ZML Industries/Cividale, Assofond.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Steel and metals

Mitigating circumstances

The severe crisis in the foundry sector was taken into account in setting the fines

Published

31 Dec 2025

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

From April 2023 until at least April 2025, Ryanair obstructed travel agencies from buying Ryanair flights in combination with other services, for example through facial recognition procedures, account deletions, blocking of means of payment and restrictive partner agreements. The AGCM considered this to be an abuse of a dominant position and imposed fines of 255,761,692 EUR on a joint and several basis.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

23 Dec 2025

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

In August 2020, the operators of the electronic class registers ‘Tamo’ and ‘Eduka’ agreed to stop competing: one group kept the class register business, the other took over the digital learning content. Following acknowledgement of the infringement, the fines were reduced by 15%: 2,714,940 EUR jointly and severally for the Snowball.xyz group and 913,340 EUR for the AL holdingas group (Art. 101 TFEU). The decision can be appealed. Source: archived copy of the press release.

Authority / court

Konkurencijos taryba (Litauischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Konkurencijos įstatymas; Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Mitigating circumstances

Acknowledgement of the infringement (15% reduction)

Published

18 Dec 2025

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

The ÚOHS (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition) fined the brewer Pivovary Staropramen, as a buyer with significant market power, 6,000,000 CZK under the act on significant market power and unfair trading practices in the agri-food sector. Between June 2023 and August 2024 the brewer applied payment terms of up to 215 days instead of the permitted 30 days to four suppliers through 60 late payments. Because of a settlement, the announced fine of 7,500,000 CZK was reduced by 20%.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

§ 4 Abs. 1 und 2 lit. k, § 8 Abs. 1 lit. a, Abs. 3 und 6 Zákon č. 395/2009 Sb. (Gesetz über erhebliche Marktmacht)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement (narovnání) with admission: 20% reduction of the 7,500,000 CZK fine announced in the statement of objections.

Original amount 6,000,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Dec 2025.

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

In February 2023, the IT holding company acquired a 50% stake with negative sole control in the Xiaomi distributor Mystical Hungary Zrt., but only approached the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) after 582 days and notified the concentration thereafter. Following voluntary disclosure, acknowledgement and waiver of legal remedies, the authority imposed a significantly reduced 32.6 million HUF.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Ungarisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Vollzugsverbot

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Voluntary disclosure, acknowledgement and waiver of legal remedies.

Published

18 Dec 2025

Original amount 32,600,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Dec 2025.

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

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.

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

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

The AGCM found that Apple's App Tracking Transparency (ATT) policy, in force since 26 April 2021, constituted an exploitative abuse of a dominant position: third-party iOS app developers had to use Apple's ATT prompt in addition to their own consent request for the same purpose, a condition imposed unilaterally and disproportionately. Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd and Apple Italia S.r.l. were fined 98,635,416.67 EUR and ordered to end the conduct immediately; the authority expressly did not question Apple's aim of protecting privacy.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV; Art. 15 Legge n. 287/1990

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

The AGCM did not apply an increase for the very high group turnover, which its guidelines would have allowed, in view of parallel proceedings against Apple by other competition authorities.

Published

22 Dec 2025

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

From 2005 to 2017, the manufacturers of automotive starter batteries agreed, with the help of the association EUROBAT, to publish jointly calculated lead surcharges (EUROBAT premiums) and to use them in price negotiations with carmakers. Fines: Exide 30 million EUR, Rombat 20.218 million EUR, Elettra 15.594 million EUR, FET 6.11 million EUR, EUROBAT 125,000 EUR; Clarios escaped a fine as leniency applicant.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 AEUV, Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency programme (Clarios 100 %, FET 50 %, Rombat 30 %); reduction for inability to pay for one company; payment in instalments

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

At the end of 2008 Aktiengesellschaft Hallenstadion Zürich and Ticketcorner AG agreed that the arena would only be let to organisers selling at least 50% of tickets through Ticketcorner, which hindered other ticketing providers. After the Federal Supreme Court found a competition-law infringement in 2020 and remitted the case (2C_113/2017), the Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO, Swiss Competition Commission) classed both companies' conduct in 2009 to 2011 as abuse of a dominant position and, by decision of 15 December 2025, fined the Hallenstadion around CHF 50,000 and Ticketcorner around CHF 65,000. The arena operator had concluded an amicable settlement; the decision can be appealed to the Federal Administrative Court.

Authority / court

Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Kartellgesetz (KG): Missbrauch einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung; Rückweisung BGer 2C_113/2017 vom 12.02.2020

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Mitigating circumstances

The arena operator concluded an amicable settlement with WEKO.

Published

22 Jan 2026

Original amount 115,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Dec 2025.

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

With the help of an employee of a competing insurance broker who later moved to ZP Libra, the broker unfairly concluded a brokerage agreement to the detriment of the competitor and used the competitor’s trade secrets to poach customers. The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) imposed 29,470 leva (1% of 2024 turnover, Art. 36(1) ZZK, Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) and 14,735 leva (0.5%, Art. 37(1) ZZK).

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Art. 36 Abs. 1, Art. 37 Abs. 1 ZZK

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

16 Dec 2025

Original amount 44,205 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Dec 2025.

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

The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) fined Lech-Stahlwerke GmbH 21 million EUR for unlawful price fixing and the exchange of competitively sensitive information. This followed a negotiated agreement setting a fine range of 20 to 30 million EUR, after which the company limited its objection against the Bundeskartellamt's (Federal Cartel Office) fining decision of 27 January 2021 to the penalty; the proceedings against BGH Edelstahlwerke GmbH continue separately.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 1. Kartellsenat (Urteil nach Einspruch gegen Bußgeldbescheid des Bundeskartellamts)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Kartellordnungswidrigkeit (Preisabsprachen, Informationsaustausch); Az. V-1 OWi OLG 1/24 (GWB)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Steel and metals

Mitigating circumstances

Negotiated agreement with the objection limited to the penalty; the court found an unlawful delay of one year and seven months in the authority's intermediate procedure.

Published

19 Dec 2025

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

The Tribunal of the Conselho Administrativo de Defesa Econômica (CADE, Brazilian competition authority) unanimously convicted the manufacturers Elo Sistemas Eletrônicos, FAE Sistemas de Medição (formerly Fae Ferragens e Aparelhos Elétricos) and Dowertech da Amazônia (now Wasion da Amazônia) of a cartel in electricity meters, in which between 2005 and 2014 prices in public and private tenders were agreed, the market was shared and monitored and cover bids were submitted. The companies received fines of 54,238,824.03 BRL, 15,167,886.53 BRL and 3,196,631.43 BRL. The case was triggered by a leniency application in 2014; in the same session CADE approved four further settlements worth around 15.5 million 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 (Lei de Defesa da Concorrência)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

10 Dec 2025

Original amount 72,603,341.99 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Dec 2025.

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

The CADE Tribunal approved a cease-and-desist settlement (TCC) with Rinnai Brasil in proceedings concerning the market for gas water heaters: according to the General Superintendence, the company had abused its dominant position by imposing minimum advertised prices on resellers, which acted as minimum advertised pricing in physical retail and in practice as resale price maintenance online. Rinnai undertook to cease the practices, to take precautions against new infringements and allegedly to pay 11,215,319.31 BRL to the Fund for Diffuse Rights (FDD). 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 · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Lei nº 12.529/2011 (Termo de Compromisso de Cessação)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Published

11 Dec 2025

Original amount 11,215,319.31 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Dec 2025.

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

UOKiK sanctioned CNH Industrial Polska and seven dealers of the New Holland, Case IH and Steyr brands for dividing the Polish market for agricultural machinery of these brands and coordinating prices. The fines on the undertakings total PLN 338,827,000 (CNH Industrial Polska 241,599,000, Raitech 24,391,000, Perkoz 23,778,000, Adler Agro 15,335,000, Rolserwis 13,356,000, a further dealer company (partnership) 8,249,000, Kisiel Agrotech 6,778,000, Kisiel 5,341,000 PLN). Fines on natural persons are not included in the amount. 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

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Original amount 338,827,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Dec 2025.

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

In 2014–2015, chassis and body manufacturers allocated contracts and submitted cover bids in tenders for refuse collection and sewer cleaning vehicles. The Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed cartel fines of 1,278.4 million HUF (of which 972.9 million on Volvo Hungária) and, in addition, a record procedural fine of 270 million HUF on Volvo Hungária for obstructing access to data secured during the inspection.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Ungarisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV (Submissionsabsprachen, Verfahrensbuße)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Admissions and leniency applications by most participants; MUT paid 116 million HUF in compensation to contracting authorities.

Published

5 Dec 2025

Original amount 1,548,400,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 5 Dec 2025.

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

For the 8.3 billion USD takeover of the fuselage and wing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) required Boeing to divest Spirit’s Airbus businesses to Airbus and the plant in Subang, Malaysia, to CTRM, to provide transitional services and to continue supplying defence competitors. A monitor oversees implementation.

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

Defence and security

Employees

10,000 or more

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

In the reopened proceedings, the Javna agencija Republike Slovenije za varstvo konkurence (Slovenian Competition Protection Agency, AVK) found that the companies had shared the market for take-back schemes for packaging waste and agreed to stop providing their services to a competitor (now Interzero). The authority ordered immediate termination; the decision is not final, and an earlier decision from 2019 in the same matter is partly final.

Authority / court

Javna agencija Republike Slovenije za varstvo konkurence (AVK)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 6 ZPOmK-1, Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Published

16 Apr 2026

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

Applying Section 32f(2) of the German Competition Act (GWB) for the first time, the Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) required Rethmann SE & Co. KG and its affiliated companies (the Rethmann Group, which includes Remondis) to notify for three years before completion even mergers below the general turnover thresholds, where the target generates more than 1 million EUR in domestic turnover and at least 100,000 EUR in the collection of non-hazardous municipal waste or the processing of hollow glass. The decision builds on the findings of the sector inquiry into municipal waste completed at the end of 2023; it was not yet final when announced.

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

§ 32f Abs. 2 GWB (Az. B5-31/24)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Published

24 Nov 2025

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

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Pfanner Schutzbekleidung GmbH, Protos GmbH and their holding company (now Pronocer Holding GmbH) 400,000 EUR because, from 9 March 2016 to 25 November 2021, they fixed their dealers' resale prices for work and protective clothing in Austria. Compliance was monitored systematically, dealers who deviated were contacted, and in 2019 a circular reminded all dealers of the prices. Reductions were granted for the settlement, cooperation and a newly introduced compliance system.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 und 4 KartG und Art. 101 AEUV; § 29 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Manufacturing and mechanical engineering

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Consensual termination of the proceedings, cooperation with the BWB (Federal Competition Authority), introduction of a compliance system.

Published

18 Sep 2026

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

Between 2016 and 2023, the shareholders of the Corsican fuel storage company DPLC made the use of the depots conditional on a shareholding by means of a contractual clause; non-shareholders had to buy their fuel from their competitors, which could push up pump prices in Corsica (decision 25-D-07). Fines: TotalEnergies Marketing France 115.82 million EUR, Rubis 64.67 million EUR, EG Retail 7 million 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 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Energy and utilities

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

17 Nov 2025

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

Valvoline wanted to acquire around 200 Oil Changers shops from Greenbriar for 625 million USD. Because the two competed directly in 25 local markets, under the proposed consent order the acquisition may only be completed if 45 shops are sold to Main Street Auto.

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

Automotive

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

Doctolib tied doctors with exclusivity clauses, bundled telemedicine with the appointment booking subscription and in 2018 acquired its main competitor in order to eliminate it (decision 25-D-06). Fines: 4.615 million EUR for exclusivity and tying, 50,000 EUR for the acquisition.

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV, Art. L.420-2 Code de commerce

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Healthcare

Culpability

intentional

Published

6 Nov 2025

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

In 2024, Emsi acquired control of four filling stations in Kaunas, Vilnius and Maišiagala through leases (via an affiliated company) and purchases without obtaining the required clearances, ignoring previous notices from the Konkurencijos taryba (Lithuanian Competition Council). For two concentrations, fines of 545,160 EUR and 477,010 EUR were imposed, a total of 1,022,170 EUR, together with an obligation to remedy the situation within three months. Source: archived copy of the press release.

Authority / court

Konkurencijos taryba (Litauischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Konkurencijos įstatymas (Anmelde- und Genehmigungspflicht für Zusammenschlüsse)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Published

6 Nov 2025

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

In 2022, clearance of an acquisition in food retail in Martinique was made conditional on the divestiture of a Géant Casino hypermarket by September 2023; Parfait only sold it in September 2025, allowed the value of the assets to deteriorate and obstructed the trustee (decision 25-D-05). Fines: 4.5 million EUR (divestiture), 2.5 million EUR (preservation of value), 600,000 EUR (cooperation).

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Verstoß gegen Zusagen aus Freigabeentscheidung 22-DCC-254 (Fusionskontrolle, Code de commerce)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

3 Nov 2025

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

From November 2021 to August 2024, the retailer (market share 28%) put pressure on economically dependent suppliers: price increases remained unapproved for months, lower prices were demanded in the form of ultimatums and delisting was threatened. The Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) found an unfair trading practice, imposed 1,872,805 EUR and set clear deadlines for negotiations.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Negodīgas tirdzniecības prakses aizlieguma likums (NTPAL)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

5 Nov 2025

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

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.

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.

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

In 2021, the Estonian parent company of Apollo cinemas acquired control of Forum Cinemas Lithuania before the notified merger had been cleared and integrated the cinemas in Vilnius and Kaunas into its network, even though the Konkurencijos taryba (Lithuanian Competition Council) had provisionally expressed competition concerns. Fine of 7,507,930 EUR (0.8% of consolidated worldwide turnover) and obligation to end the infringement within six months. Source: archived copy of the press release.

Authority / court

Konkurencijos taryba (Litauischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Konkurencijos įstatymas (Vollzugsverbot bei Zusammenschlüssen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

30 Oct 2025

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

During an unannounced inspection in the air-conditioning, refrigeration and heat pump services sector, the company repeatedly refused to produce a mobile phone used for business purposes. The Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (Antimonopoly Office of the Slovak Republic, PMÚ SR) regarded this as obstruction of the inspection and imposed 70,000 EUR, around 1% of the previous year’s turnover (not final).

Authority / court

Protimonopolný úrad Slovenskej republiky (PMÚ SR)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Slowakisches Wettbewerbsschutzgesetz (Mitwirkungspflicht bei Nachprüfungen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Published

28 Oct 2025

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

On 22 October 2025 the CADE Tribunal approved, in a single block, five cease-and-desist settlements (Termos de Compromisso de Cessação, TCC) with banks and allegedly set the following pecuniary contributions: BofA Securities Inc. 33,010,207.04 BRL, Nomura International plc 32,145,917.76 BRL, Standard Chartered Bank 11,544,947.78 BRL, Credit Suisse AG 1,582,051.57 BRL and MUFG Bank 714,782.33 BRL, together 78,997,906.48 BRL. The session minutes do not state the subject of the proceedings; all five banks are, however, among the parties whose conviction the General Superintendence had recommended in April 2025 in the proceedings on the offshore foreign-exchange cartel (according to CADE, collusion on the prices of FX transactions, exchange of sensitive information and disadvantaging other market participants such as brokers). 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 (Termo de Compromisso de Cessação)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

30 Oct 2025

Original amount 78,997,906.48 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Oct 2025.

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

According to the European Commission's findings, from April 2015 to April 2023 Gucci restricted the freedom of independent online and brick-and-mortar retailers throughout the EEA to set their own resale prices, for example through requirements on recommended prices, maximum discounts and sales periods, and prohibited online sales for one product line. Owing to its cooperation, including revealing an infringement unknown to the Commission, the fine was reduced by 50% to 119,674,000 EUR; separate decisions against Chloé and Loewe were adopted on the same day.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation providing evidence of significant added value, disclosure of an unknown infringement and acknowledgement: 50% reduction.

Published

14 Oct 2025

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

The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined Bauunternehmung Pusiol GmbH, a subsidiary of Steiner Baugesellschaft m.b.H., allegedly 130,000 EUR for taking part in the construction cartel in Lower Austria from July 2002 to August 2016 (price fixing, market sharing and information exchange in civil engineering tenders). The BWB (Federal Competition Authority) set the fine lower because of the company's limited financial capacity, as it reported annual losses in 2023 and 2024; the company gave a full acknowledgement.

Authority / court

Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 Abs. 1 KartG und Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; § 29 Abs. 1 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Limited financial capacity (losses in 2023 and 2024); full acknowledgement.

Published

4 Mar 2026

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

During ongoing tenders for school equipment, Smart Soft sent dozens of identical letters to schools in the Plovdiv/Pazardzhik/Panagyurishte region containing untrue or distorted statements about a competitor. The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found damage to reputation (Art. 30 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) over around two months and imposed 3% of 2024 turnover, i.e. 37,410 leva. An appeal has 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

Telecoms, IT and software

Original amount 37,410 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Sep 2025.

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

According to the AGCM, Eni, Kuwait Petroleum Italia (Q8), Italiana Petroli (IP), Esso Italiana, Tamoil Italia and Saras raised the price component for blending biofuels (the "componente bio") simultaneously and in a coordinated manner from 1 January 2020 to 30 June 2023; price information in the trade publication Staffetta Quotidiana, among other things, served to stabilise the arrangement. The fines total 936,659,087 EUR: Eni 336,214,660, Kuwait Petroleum Italia 172,592,363, Italiana Petroli 163,669,804, Esso Italiana 129,363,561, Tamoil Italia 91,029,755 and Saras 43,788,944 EUR. Eni's basic amount was increased by 10–15% for its leading role in initiating and monitoring the coordination.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

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

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Mitigating circumstances

Saras received a reduction of 5–10% because it submitted its antitrust compliance programme in January 2024, which the AGCM regarded as in good time; the AGCM could no longer take into account the programmes that Eni and IP only submitted in June 2025.

Published

26 Sep 2025

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

During an unannounced inspection by the Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) on 6 November 2024 in a suspected cartel case, the company partly refused to provide information, and an internet block set up on a computer was not lifted in time. The authority penalised both as procedural infringements with 18,519.86 EUR and 27,779.80 EUR, totalling 46,299.66 EUR, even though it closed the underlying cartel case for lack of evidence.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 9.4 Abs. 1 Nr. 5 Konkurences likums (Wettbewerbsgesetz)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Published

30 Sep 2025

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

According to the European Commission's findings, Google had, since at least 2014, abused its dominant position in publisher ad servers (DFP) and in programmatic ad buying tools (Google Ads, DV360) by favouring its own ad exchange AdX, for example by informing it in advance of the best rival bid. In addition to the fine of €2.95bn, the Commission ordered Google to end the self-preferencing and to propose measures against the conflicts of interest along the adtech supply chain; earlier fines imposed on Google for abuse of dominance were taken into account.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV; Art. 54 EWR-Abkommen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Repeat case

yes

Published

5 Sep 2025

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

From 2021 to 2024, two groups of construction companies coordinated in more than 30 public tenders for the construction and repair of utility pipelines: they exchanged sensitive information, determined winners and submitted sham bids. Prompted by information from the contracting entity Rīgas namu pārvaldnieks, the Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) imposed a total of 513,508.08 EUR.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 11 Abs. 1 Konkurences likums

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

All companies except Infrakom concluded a settlement with the Competition Council, acknowledged the facts and waived an appeal; in return, a 10% fine reduction.

Published

10 Sep 2025

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

Regional suppliers of surface treatments and chip sealing in road maintenance colluded on bids and allocated territories. Switzerland's Competition Commission (Wettbewerbskommission, WEKO) imposed sanctions on Bitusag/Paupe (jointly and severally, CHF 640,000–990,000, exact amount redacted), Wyss Fils (CHF 44,000–74,000), Prodo (CHF 760) and Duckert (CHF 0) and approved amicable settlements; the investigation against Colas Suisse was discontinued.

Authority / court

Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 3 i.V.m. Abs. 1 KG, Art. 49a Abs. 1 KG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Mitigating circumstances

Amicable settlements; leniency programme (Duckert free of sanctions)

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

Samkeppniseftirlitið (Icelandic Competition Authority) found that the dominant electricity producer Landsvirkjun, from 2017 to 2021, in many cases bid lower in the tenders of grid operator Landsnet for transmission losses than the price at which it sold wholesale electricity to competitors, so that they could only keep up at a loss (margin squeeze). The authority classified this as an intentional abuse of a dominant position and imposed a fine of 1,400,000,000 ISK; aggravating factors were the long duration and the fact that the conduct increased after Landsvirkjun knew of the investigation.

Authority / court

Samkeppniseftirlitið

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 11 Samkeppnislög Nr. 44/2005 (isländisches Wettbewerbsgesetz) und Art. 54 EWR-Abkommen; Geldbuße nach Art. 37 Samkeppnislög

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Culpability

intentional

Published

18 Aug 2025

Original amount 1,400,000,000 ISK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Aug 2025.

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

A dominant company for the collection, distribution and marketing of Madeira bananas (name not given) required producers to sign exclusivity declarations. In a settlement procedure (PRC/2025/6), it ended the practice and paid 30,000 EUR (date = press release).

Authority / court

Autoridade da Concorrência (AdC)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Lei da Concorrência (Lei n.º 19/2012), Art. 11.º; Art. 102 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement (transação), full cooperation, immediate cessation, short duration

Published

13 Aug 2025

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

The two leading accommodation booking platforms sold small and medium-sized lodging businesses advertising packages whose price included discount coupons for guests, and let unused coupons expire without compensation (Yanolja at the end of the contract period, Yeogi Eottae through a validity of only one day). The KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission, Korea's competition authority) treated this as an abuse of a superior bargaining position, issued corrective and notification orders and imposed fines totalling KRW 1,540 million: KRW 540 million on Nol Universe (Yanolja) and KRW 1,000 million, the statutory maximum fixed-amount fine, on Yeogi Eottae.

Authority / court

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 45 Abs. 1 Nr. 6 MRFTA i. V. m. Art. 52 und Anhang 2 Nr. 6 lit. d Durchführungsverordnung (Monopoly Regulation and Fair Trade Act)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

12 Aug 2025

Original amount 1,540,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Aug 2025.

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

ZGR Global (formerly Zhongguo Remittance) and Hanshan Money Express, two adjacent leading providers of Chinese yuan remittances in People's Park Complex, shared their current and partly non-public remittance rates with each other daily, often several times a day, from at least January 2016 to February 2022, verbally over the counter, on paper slips or by phone. The Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS) found this to infringe s 34 of the Competition Act and on 31 July 2025 imposed penalties totalling 5,365,007 SGD (ZGR Global 2,793,700, Hanshan 2,571,307 SGD). In addition to its cooperation discount, Hanshan received a further 10% discount for its admission under the Fast Track Procedure.

Authority / court

Competition and Consumer Commission of Singapore (CCCS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Competition Act 2004, s 34

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Hanshan: discount for cooperation plus a further 10% for its admission under the Fast Track Procedure.

Published

31 Jul 2025

Original amount 5,365,007 SGD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Jul 2025.

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

In consignment agreements, the pharmaceutical wholesaler had made payment to suppliers of food supplements dependent on subsequent resale (payment period over 30 days) and had reserved the right to hold suppliers liable for spoiled goods. The Konkurentsiamet (Estonian Competition Authority) found infringements of the act on unfair trading practices in the food supply chain and ordered amended contractual terms.

Authority / court

Konkurentsiamet (Estnische Wettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

§ 4 Abs. 1 und 2, § 5 Abs. 2, § 7 Abs. 1 PTEKS (UTP-Richtlinie (EU) 2019/633)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Chemicals and pharmaceuticals

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

The Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC, Spanish competition and markets authority) fined Telefónica de España 20,000,000 EUR because from August 2021 to April 2023 it tied its Movistar Fusión and MiMovistar bundles including pay TV and device rental to minimum contract periods and early termination penalties. This breached the commitments under which the acquisition of DTS had been cleared in 2015; the CNMC treated the repeated breaches of these commitments as an aggravating factor.

Authority / court

Comisión Nacional de los Mercados y la Competencia (CNMC)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Art. 62.4.c) und Art. 64.2.a) Ley 15/2007 de Defensa de la Competencia; Zusagen 1.1 und 1.1.2 einer früheren Fusionsfreigabe

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Repeat case

yes

Published

30 Jul 2025

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

The Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (AZTN, Croatian Competition Agency) found that the retail chain TOMMY d.o.o. sold twelve food products to consumers on 4 October 2023 below their purchase price including VAT by combining a promotional price with a 10 % customer discount, which the law against unfair trading practices in the food supply chain prohibits. The authority stressed that discounts as such are permitted and, taking several mitigating circumstances into account, imposed 212,500 EUR.

Authority / court

Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (AZTN)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 11 Abs. 1 Nr. 24 i. V. m. Art. 4 Abs. 2 Nr. 6 Zakon o zabrani nepoštenih trgovačkih praksi u lancu opskrbe hranom (ZNTP)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

The authority took several mitigating circumstances into account.

Published

22 Jul 2025

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

The Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO, Swiss Competition Commission) found discounts negotiated jointly through the Markant cooperation to be lawful, but not opaque rebates: suppliers had to buy an ever more expensive service package from Markant, part of whose fees Markant passed on undisclosed to 16 retailers, and suppliers who refused faced collective countermeasures up to delisting. WEKO classed this as an unlawful purchasing-side price agreement and fined the 16 retailers a total of around CHF 28 million. The decision can be appealed to the Federal Administrative Court.

Authority / court

Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Kartellgesetz (KG): unzulässige einkaufsseitige Preisabrede

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

8 Jul 2025

Original amount 28,000,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Jul 2025.

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

According to the European Commission's findings, Alchem took part from 1 November 2005 to 12 February 2018 in an EEA-wide cartel concerning the active ingredient N-butylbromide scopolamine (SNBB), involving minimum prices, quotas and exchanges of sensitive information. Unlike the other participants, who were subject to a settlement decision in October 2023, Alchem declined to settle and received a fine of 489,000 EUR without any reduction.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Chemicals and pharmaceuticals

Published

4 Jul 2025

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

The six companies colluded on cover bids, market sharing and prices in 26 contracts awarded by the state railway infrastructure administration (total value over 850 million CZK, 2015–2021). In a settlement procedure, the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed a total of 157.693 million CZK at first instance; two companies appealed against the amount.