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 topicWho?
by company- Lowe's Home Centers, LLC €10.8m 92 % · 1 case
- Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd (Shein) €1m 8 % · 1 case
- Anonymised companies – 0 % · 2 cases
- Adidas (Sportartikelhersteller) – 0 % · 1 case
- Kmart NZ Holdings Limited – 0 % · 1 case
- Musinsa Co., Ltd., Shinsung Tongsang Co., Ltd., E-Land World Co., Ltd., ITX Korea Co., Ltd. – 0 % · 1 case
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 | – |
| 2024 | 1 | – |
| 2025 | 5 | €11.8m |
| 2026 | 0 | – |
7 cases
25 Nov 2025 Lowe's Home Centers, LLCLowe's Home Centers: USD 12.5m over breaches of lead paint rules €10.8m
In a second consent decree, Lowe's Home Centers undertakes to pay a civil penalty of allegedly 12,500,000 USD and to introduce a company-wide programme so that the installation firms it hires work lead-safely in homes built before 1978. The EPA had found breaches of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule on more than 250 renovation jobs in 23 states, mostly from 2019 to 2021, such as missing certified renovators, missing customer information and inadequate dust containment, as well as breaches of a 2014 settlement. The settlement was lodged with the court on 25 November 2025. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment. The decision is not final.
Companies that outsource trade work to subcontractors remain responsible for their certification and work practices and must be able to show how they manage this.
Managing subcontractors on renovations involving lead paint
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) / U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. District Court, Central District of California)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule; Consent Decree von 2014
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Repeat case
- yes
- Published
- 25 Nov 2025
Original amount 12,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Nov 2025.
- EPA: Lowe's Home Centers, LLC RRP 2025 Settlement Summary Press release of an authority
- EPA News Release, 25.11.2025: Lowe's Home Centers to Pay $12.5M Penalty for Lead Paint Violations Press release of an authority
- Second Consent Decree, United States v. Lowe's Home Centers, LLC, Case 2:25-cv-09324 (C.D. Cal.), lodged 25.11.2025 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Aug 2025 Infinite Styles Services Co. Ltd (Shein)AGCM: 1 million EUR fine against Shein for misleading environmental claims €1m
Italy's competition and consumer protection authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, AGCM) objected to vague and in part false claims about circular design and recyclability, about the ‘green’ evoluSHEIN collection (only a small share of the range) and about emission targets, while emissions rose in 2023/2024. The ultra-fast-fashion model is subject to a heightened duty of care, the authority held; it imposed 1 million EUR (case PS12709).
Communicate climate targets and recycling promises only if they are specific, substantiated and consistent with actual developments.
Verifiable sustainability communication in online retail
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- Codice del Consumo (unlautere Geschäftspraktiken), Verfahren PS12709
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 4 Aug 2025
- PS12709 - Italian Competition Authority: 1 million euros fine imposed on Shein for misleading and omissive green claims Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Jul 2025 Kmart NZ Holdings LimitedKmart NZ warned over unsubstantiated “100% sustainably sourced cotton” claim Reprimand or warning
The Commerce Commission (ComCom, New Zealand's competition and consumer regulator) warned Kmart NZ Holdings Limited because, from 4 August 2023 to 4 October 2024, the company advertised own-brand clothing with the claim “100% sustainably sourced cotton” without being able to substantiate it: the cotton sourced as “Better Cotton” was mixed with conventional cotton in the supply chain. The authority considers a breach of s 12A Fair Trading Act 1986 (unsubstantiated representations) likely; only a court could determine one.
Absolute environmental claims such as “100%” require complete proof across the supply chain; a sustainability scheme whose raw material is mixed with conventional material does not support them.
Absolute sustainability claims in advertising only with complete evidence
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Commerce Commission (ComCom), Neuseeland
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- s 12A Fair Trading Act 1986 (Neuseeland)
- Action
- Reprimand or warning
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Mitigating circumstances
- Kmart removed the claim from its New Zealand website after the authority raised it and stated that it continues to provide regular compliance training on consumer and competition law.
- Published
- 14 Aug 2025
- Commerce Commission: Kmart investigated and warned by ComCom for greenwashing advertising (14.08.2025) Press release of an authority
- Commerce Commission Case Register: Kmart NZ Holdings Limited (Kmart), PRJ0047592 Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 May 2025 Musinsa Co., Ltd., Shinsung Tongsang Co., Ltd., E-Land World Co., Ltd., ITX Korea Co., Ltd.Greenwashing on leather products: KFTC warns four fashion chains, including ZARA operator Reprimand or warning
The KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission, Korea's competition and consumer authority) found that Musinsa, Shinsung Tongsang, E-Land World and ITX Korea (operator of ZARA in Korea) had advertised leather products, including those made of synthetic materials, with blanket environmental terms such as 'eco' without sufficient evidence, and treated this as false, exaggerated and misleading advertising under the Labeling and Advertising Act. Because all four admitted the violations and corrected them voluntarily, it limited itself to warnings, issued between 2 April and 8 May 2025 (Shinsung Tongsang 2 April, Musinsa 10 April, E-Land World and ITX Korea 8 May); according to the KFTC it was the first sanctioned greenwashing case in the fashion sector.
Environmental claims such as 'eco' need a specific, substantiated reference to the whole product, otherwise they count as misleading.
Substantiated environmental claims in advertising and product labelling
- Authority / court
- Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- Art. 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (Labeling and Advertising Act; falsche oder übertriebene Werbung)
- Action
- Reprimand or warning
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Mitigating circumstances
- All four companies admitted the violations and corrected them voluntarily; the KFTC therefore limited itself to warnings.
- Published
- 15 May 2025
- KFTC press release (EN), 15 May 2025: Sanctions Imposed on Four Fashion SPA Business Operators for Violations of the Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising in Relation to Eco-friendliness Press release of an authority
- KFTC-Pressemitteilung (KO), 15.05.2025: 4개 패션 SPA브랜드 사업자의 부당한 광고행위 제재 Press release of an authority
- KFTC-Pressemitteilung (KO, PDF): Verwarnung (경고) der vier Unternehmen mit Datum je Unternehmen, Art. 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 1 표시광고법 Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Mar 2025 Adidas (Sportartikelhersteller)Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court: Adidas may not claim 'climate neutral by 2050' without explanation Other
On an action by a consumer association, the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth (Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court) ordered Adidas to cease the former statement 'By 2050 we will be climate neutral' on its corporate website and to reimburse warning costs. The statement created the impression that the goal would be reached solely through the company's own emission reductions, although green electricity certificates were also to be used; a reference only in the linked annual report was not sufficient. According to the court's press release of 26 March 2025, the judgment was not final; whether an appeal was lodged is not known here.
Climate targets on a corporate website also count as advertising and must disclose there what role offsetting plays.
Climate targets on the corporate website as advertising
- Authority / court
- Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- UWG (irreführende Werbung); Az. 3 HK O 6524/24
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 26 Mar 2025
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
27 Mar 2024 three British fashion retailersCMA: three fashion retailers commit to clear environmental claims Other
Following an investigation into their fashion environmental claims, the three retailers gave formal undertakings to the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA): no vague terms such as ‘eco’ or ‘responsible’, clear information on recycled and organic content, transparent criteria for green ranges, correct filters and information on labels, and regular reports to the CMA. No breach of law was established.
Sustainability labels in online shops must be specific, verifiable and easy for customers to understand; blanket terms are not sufficient.
Wording of environmental claims in marketing and online shops
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (förmliche Verpflichtungszusagen)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 27 Mar 2024
- CMA, Fallübersicht (Entscheidung 2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 27 Mar 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Jul 2023 a German drugstore chainKarlsruhe court bans drugstore chain's 'climate/environmentally neutral' claims Order
On an action by Deutsche Umwelthilfe, the Landgericht Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe Regional Court) ordered a German drugstore chain to stop advertising liquid soap, sun lotion and shower cream on the packaging as 'climate neutral' and a washing-up liquid as an 'environmentally neutral product'. In the court's view, the packaging of two of the products lacked essential information on the term; moreover, CO2 offsetting via, among other things, a time-limited forest protection project could in principle not deliver the promised lasting climate neutrality.
Anyone advertising climate neutrality through offsetting must explain on the packaging itself what is offset and must not promise a permanent effect that time-limited projects cannot deliver.
Climate-neutral claims based on CO2 offsetting
- Authority / court
- Landgericht Karlsruhe, Kammer für Handelssachen
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- § 5 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 2 Nr. 1 UWG; § 5a Abs. 1 UWG
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 26 Jul 2023
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 26 Jul 2025 · Direct link