Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa: 2,207 cases from 44 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by action- Fine €5.89bn 99 % · 51 cases
- Other €68.2m 1 % · 3 cases
- Order – 0 % · 13 cases
- Disgorgement of profits – 0 % · 1 case
Who?
by sectorAll sectors
- Media and online platforms €4.45bn 75 % · 15 cases
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals €532.6m 9 % · 6 cases
- Telecoms, IT and software €281.6m 5 % · 7 cases
- Transport, logistics and shipping €275m 5 % · 4 cases
- Energy and utilities €236m 4 % · 13 cases
- Healthcare €85.7m 1 % · 2 cases
- Retail and e-commerce €67.1m 1 % · 9 cases
- Financial services and insurance €15.2m 0 % · 3 cases
- Automotive €15m 0 % · 1 case
- Other €4.42m 0 % · 3 cases
- 3 more€2.05m
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 7 | €167.4m |
| 2023 | 11 | €216.9m |
| 2024 | 15 | €2.02bn |
| 2025 | 21 | €3.53bn |
| 2026 | 14 | €22.3m |
68 cases
24 Sep 2026 Kalibrate Canada (Tochter der Kalibrate Technologies Ltd.)Canada: Kalibrate must stop sharing retailer-specific petrol station data Order
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.
Providers of market and price data must ensure that their products do not disseminate individualised competitor data.
- 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
- Competition Bureau secures agreement with Kalibrate to protect competition in the retail gas industry Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Aug 2026 Wolt DenmarkWolt: Competition Council finds abuse of dominant position vis-à-vis restaurants Order
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.
Platforms with a high market share should have parity clauses and unilateral cost shifting in standard terms reviewed under competition law.
- 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
- KFST – Wolt has abused its dominant position (26.08.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Aug 2026 Elizabeta Promet d.o.o., SolinCroatia: 10,000 EUR against Elizabeta Promet for deliveries without a written contract €10,000
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).
In food purchasing, the mere absence of written supply contracts is an infringement – a simple contract standard prevents this.
Written form for supply contracts in food purchasing
- 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
- Provedba ZNTP-a: AZTN kaznio ELIZABETU PROMET d.o.o., Solin s 10.000,00 eura zbog nametanja nepoštenih trgovačkih praksi Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Aug 2026 Kommunal Landspensjonskasse Gjensidig Forsikringsselskap (KLP)KLP: binding commitments after suspected abuse in municipal pensions Order
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.
Dominant companies must not use close customer relationships to deter customers from running tenders – even a suspicion of this can lead to binding obligations.
Conduct of dominant companies towards public purchasers
- 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
Report an error
13 Aug 2026 Apple Inc., Apple GmbHBundeskartellamt: Apple aligns tracking prompts for its own and third-party apps Order
The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) declared binding commitments by Apple on its App Tracking Transparency Framework (ATTF), closing its proceedings under Section 19a(2) of the German Competition Act (GWB) and Article 102 TFEU. According to the preliminary assessment, third-party apps had to obtain, for personalised advertising, an additional and more off-putting consent prompt prescribed by Apple, while Apple used a prompt of its own for its own services; in future the prompts will be aligned so that content, wording and design are neutral, and app providers will be able to combine the required prompts more easily.
Platform privacy rules must be equally strict for a company's own and third-party services, otherwise they become a competition problem themselves.
Equal treatment of own and third-party services in consent prompts
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- § 19a Abs. 2 GWB, Art. 102 AEUV (Verpflichtungszusagen, Az. B7-54/25)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Telecoms, IT and software
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 17 Aug 2026
- Bundeskartellamt: Apple ändert Regeln für personalisierte Werbung in Apps (17.08.2026) Press release of an authority
- Bundeskartellamt, Beschluss B7-54/25 vom 13.08.2026 (öffentliche Version) Decision of an authority
- Bundeskartellamt, Entscheidungsdatenbank: B7-54/25, Verpflichtungszusagen, Entscheidungsdatum 13.08.2026 Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Jul 2026 Meta Platforms Inc.; Meta Platforms Ireland LimitedMeta: interim orders on remuneration for press content (neighbouring rights) Order
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.
Dominant platforms must conduct remuneration negotiations transparently and give their negotiating partners the data that makes an objective assessment possible in the first place.
Abuse of market power in remuneration negotiations with content providers
- 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
- Autorité de la concurrence, Décision 26-MC-01 du 8 juillet 2026 (Entscheidungsseite) Decision of an authority
- Autorité de la concurrence, Décision 26-MC-01 (Volltext, PDF) Decision of an authority
- Autorité de la concurrence, Communiqué de presse zu 26-MC-01 Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Jun 2026 Kaufland Hrvatska k.d.Croatia: 300,000 EUR against Kaufland for unfair practices towards suppliers €300,000
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).
Purchasing departments must know the payment deadlines and fee prohibitions of UTP law – repeat offences become significantly more expensive.
Fair terms towards suppliers in purchasing
- 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
- AZTN kaznio KAUFLAND HRVATSKA k.d., Zagreb s 300.000,00 eura zbog nametanja nepoštenih trgovačkih praksi Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Jun 2026 MetaMeta: interim measures to keep WhatsApp open to rival AI assistants free of charge Order
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.
A company that has opened its dominant platform to third parties must not squeeze out competitors in the growing AI market through exclusion or prohibitive fees.
Refusal of platform access to AI competitors
- 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
- Commission imposes interim measures on Meta to preserve free access to WhatsApp for rival AI assistants (IP/26/1276) Press release of an authority
- Presscorner-Schnittstelle, Volltext IP/26/1276 Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 Mar 2026 Mavera ABMavera: SEK 14.3m for exclusivity clauses with insurance medical advisers €1.32m
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.
Exclusivity ties imposed by a dominant customer on service providers can keep competitors out of the market and carry high competition law risk.
Exclusivity clauses used by dominant companies
- 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.
- Konkurrensverket, Ärenden och beslut: Mavera AB, dnr 91/2023 Enforcement database of an authority
- Konkurrensverket, Beschluss vom 19.03.2026, Dnr 91/2023 – Mavera AB Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
5 Mar 2026 SIA "SS"Classifieds portal ss.lv blocked users of competitor – fine of 186,781 EUR €186,781
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.
Market-leading platforms must not punish users for multi-homing – internal moderation rules need objective criteria.
Competition law limits in dealing with competitors’ 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
- KP konstatē SIA „SS“ dominējoša stāvokļa ļaunprātīgu izmantošanu … naudas sodu 186 780,65 EUR (18.03.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Feb 2026 Check24 GmbHBundeskartellamt: Check24 drops best-price clauses towards energy suppliers Order
The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) declared binding commitments by Check24 GmbH under which the comparison website gives up price parity clauses when brokering electricity and gas contracts: energy suppliers may offer their tariffs more cheaply via other websites and their own sales channels without the contractual relationship, commission or ranking depending on it (no 'dimming'). In its preliminary assessment the authority had concerns under Articles 101 and 102 TFEU and Sections 1, 19 and 20 of the German Competition Act (GWB).
Leading brokerage platforms should avoid best-price clauses; indirect levers such as a worse ranking also count as parity requirements.
Best-price and parity clauses in brokerage contracts
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- § 32b Abs. 1 GWB (Verpflichtungszusagen); Bedenken nach Art. 101, 102 AEUV, §§ 1, 19, 20 GWB (Az. B8-40/25)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 24 Feb 2026
- Check24 verpflichtet sich zur Aufgabe von Preisparitätsklauseln gegenüber Energieversorgern (24.02.2026) Press release of an authority
- Bundeskartellamt, Beschluss B8-40/25 vom 18.02.2026 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Feb 2026 Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon EU S.à r.l.Bundeskartellamt bans Amazon price controls and orders disgorgement of around 59 million EUR Disgorgement of profits
The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) prohibited Amazon from steering third-party sellers' prices on amazon.de through price control mechanisms that deactivate offers deemed too expensive or exclude them from the 'Buy Box'; such mechanisms are now only permitted exceptionally, for instance in cases of price gouging, with transparent rules and notifications. At the same time, for the first time since the 2023 reform, the authority ordered disgorgement of economic benefits: for the period from 7 November 2023 to 31 December 2024 Amazon must pay around 58.8 million EUR (press release: around 59 million EUR; the exact amount is redacted in the public version).
A platform operator that also sells on its platform must not steer sellers' prices through visibility sanctions and risks having the resulting benefits disgorged.
Platform operators interfering in sellers' pricing
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- § 19a Abs. 2 S. 1 Nr. 2 GWB, § 19 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 Nr. 1 GWB, Art. 102 AEUV; Vorteilsabschöpfung nach § 34 Abs. 1 GWB (Az. B2-73/20)
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Culpability
- intentional
- Published
- 5 Feb 2026
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Jan 2026 Repsol Soluciones Energéticas (vormals Repsol Comercial de Productos Petrolíferos), Solred, Campsa Estaciones de Servicio u. a. (5 Gesellschaften)CNMC: €20.5m fine and procurement ban for Repsol over margin squeeze €20.5m
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.
Vertically integrated dominant firms must set wholesale and retail prices so that equally efficient competitors at the downstream level can remain viable.
Margin squeeze by vertically integrated undertakings
- 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
- CNMC, Resolución S/0011/22 DISTRIBUCIÓN HIDROCARBUROS (28.01.2026) Decision of an authority
- CNMC Expediente S/0011/22 - DISTRIBUCION HIDROCARBUROS Enforcement database of an authority
- La CNMC multa con 20,5 millones a varias empresas del Grupo Repsol y les prohíbe participar en contratos públicos Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 Jan 2026 SIA „Burde B.V.“Latvia: Burde B.V. fined for excessive prices for speed-camera software licences €24,199
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.
An exclusive distributor supplying a locked-in customer must be able to justify price increases objectively.
- 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
- KP lēmums Nr. 5, lieta KL/2.2-5/24/16 (fotoradaru izplatīšana), 22.01.2026 – publiskojamā versija Decision of an authority
- Konkurences padomes lēmumi (Nr. 34, Statuss: Tiesvedībā, publicēts 04.02.2026) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
23 Dec 2025 Ryanair DAC, Ryanair Holdings plcItaly: 255.8 million EUR against Ryanair for obstructing travel agencies €255.8m
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.
Dominant providers must not use technical barriers to force sales partners and resellers out of the market.
- 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
- A568 - Ryanair DAC and its parent company Ryanair Holdings plc fined over € 255 million for abuse of a dominant position Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Dec 2025 Pivovary Staropramen s.r.o.ÚOHS: CZK 6m fine for Pivovary Staropramen over excessive payment terms €245,982
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%.
Purchasing and accounting must technically safeguard the statutory 30-day term for agri-food supplies instead of steering payments by liquidity.
Payment terms towards agri-food suppliers
- 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.
- ÚOHS, Rozhodnutí č. j. ÚOHS-49420/2025/400, sp. zn. ÚOHS-S0597/2025/TS, Brno 18. 12. 2025 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Dec 2025 Apple Inc., Apple Distribution International Ltd, Apple Italia S.r.l.AGCM fines Apple €98.6m over its App Tracking Transparency rules €98.6m
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.
Even privacy-driven platform rules set by a dominant company must be proportionate for its business partners.
Abuse of market power through platform rules on consent
- 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
- AGCM, Provvedimento A561 (Adunanza 16.12.2025), Chiusura istruttoria Decision of an authority
- AGCM, Comunicato stampa 22.12.2025: A561 – Sanzione di oltre 98 milioni di euro ad Apple per abuso di posizione dominante Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Dec 2025 Aktiengesellschaft Hallenstadion Zürich (AGH); Ticketcorner AGWEKO fines Hallenstadion Zurich and Ticketcorner over ticketing clause €122,929
At the end of 2008 Aktiengesellschaft Hallenstadion Zürich and Ticketcorner AG agreed that the arena would only be let to organisers selling at least 50% of tickets through Ticketcorner, which hindered other ticketing providers. After the Federal Supreme Court found a competition-law infringement in 2020 and remitted the case (2C_113/2017), the Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO, Swiss Competition Commission) classed both companies' conduct in 2009 to 2011 as abuse of a dominant position and, by decision of 15 December 2025, fined the Hallenstadion around CHF 50,000 and Ticketcorner around CHF 65,000. The arena operator had concluded an amicable settlement; the decision can be appealed to the Federal Administrative Court.
Exclusivity clauses between strong market players remain a competition risk, even if the proceedings only end years later.
Exclusivity clauses and tying by dominant undertakings
- Authority / court
- Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- Kartellgesetz (KG): Missbrauch einer marktbeherrschenden Stellung; Rückweisung BGer 2C_113/2017 vom 12.02.2020
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Mitigating circumstances
- The arena operator concluded an amicable settlement with WEKO.
- Published
- 22 Jan 2026
Original amount 115,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Dec 2025.
- WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 22.01.2026: WEKO büsst Hallenstadion und Ticketcorner Press release of an authority
- Newsroom-Schnittstelle der Bundesverwaltung: Volltext der WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 22.01.2026 (weko_13429) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
10 Dec 2025 Rinnai Brasil Tecnologia de Aquecimento Ltda.CADE: Rinnai pays BRL 11.2m in settlement over minimum price requirements €1.77m
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.
Manufacturers with a strong market position should not dictate minimum prices to resellers for advertising or online offers.
Minimum price requirements for resellers and resale price maintenance online
- 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.
- Diário Oficial da União, 17.12.2025, Seção 1, S. 108: Ata da 259ª Sessão Ordinária de Julgamento (10.12.2025), Requerimento de TCC nº 08700.005856/2025-52 Official register or notice
- CADE, 11.12.2025: Cade homologa acordos em investigação no mercado de aquecedores de água a gás Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Nov 2025 DoctolibFrance: 4.665 million EUR against Doctolib for abuse in doctor appointment booking €4.67m
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.
Platforms with high market shares should have exclusivity clauses, bundled offers and acquisitions of rivals reviewed under competition law.
- 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
- L'Autorité de la concurrence sanctionne Doctolib à hauteur de 4 665 000 euros Press release of an authority
- Décision 25-D-06 relative à des pratiques mises en œuvre dans le secteur de la prise de rendez-vous médicaux en ligne Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link