Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 718 cases from 32 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by authority- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission €367,242 100 % · 2 cases
- Federal Trade Commission — 0 % · 1 case
What for?
by topicWho?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2023 | 1 | — |
| Q1 2024 | 2 | €367,242 |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | — |
3 cases
18 Mar 2024 Delphia (USA) Inc.SEC ‘AI washing’: Delphia pays 225,000 US dollars for fabricated AI use €206,574
From 2019 to 2023, the investment adviser claimed to use AI and machine learning to analyse client data for investment decisions but did not have these capabilities. In a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) (without admission), Delphia paid 225,000 US dollars.
Statements about the use of AI in marketing and investor information must be technically verifiable.
Permissible advertising claims about AI capabilities
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- AI and digital regulation · AI systems
- Legal basis
- Investment Advisers Act of 1940; Marketing Rule
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Published
- 18 Mar 2024
Original amount 225,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Mar 2024.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Mar 2024 Global Predictions Inc.SEC ‘AI washing’: Global Predictions pays 175,000 US dollars for AI advertising promises €160,668
In 2023, the investment adviser falsely advertised itself as the ‘first regulated AI financial advisor’ offering AI-driven expert forecasts, misrepresented tax-loss harvesting and used impermissible liability clauses. In a settlement with the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), the company paid 175,000 US dollars.
Superlatives such as ‘first AI adviser’ are statements of fact and must be checked before publication.
Permissible advertising claims about AI capabilities
- Authority / court
- U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission
- Area of law
- AI and digital regulation · AI systems
- Legal basis
- Investment Advisers Act of 1940; Marketing Rule
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Published
- 18 Mar 2024
Original amount 175,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Mar 2024.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 Dec 2023 Rite Aid CorporationFTC: five-year ban on AI facial recognition for Rite Aid after false alerts Order
According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the pharmacy chain used AI facial recognition in hundreds of stores from 2012 to 2020, which falsely flagged customers – particularly women and people of colour – as shoplifters; accuracy was neither tested in advance nor monitored, and employees were not adequately trained. Under the proposed settlement order (subject to approval by the bankruptcy court and the federal court), Rite Aid may not use the technology for surveillance for five years and must delete images and algorithms developed from them; in addition, the FTC alleges a violation of its 2010 data security order.
AI systems with consequences for people need testing for error rates, ongoing monitoring and trained staff who critically review matches.
Training on handling AI matches and false alerts
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission
- Area of law
- AI and digital regulation · AI systems
- Legal basis
- FTC Act Section 5; Verstoß gegen FTC-Datensicherheitsanordnung von 2010
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Repeat case
- yes
- Published
- 19 Dec 2023
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link