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.

4cases from 3 jurisdictions
€77,245Total of monetary amounts (2 cases with an amount)
€58,610Largest single case: Devro (Scotland) Limited
€38,623Median per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

When?

per quarter, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
Q3 20230—
Q4 20230—
Q1 20240—
Q2 20241—
Q3 20240—
Q4 20240—
Q1 20250—
Q2 20250—
Q3 20251—
Q4 20252€77,245
Q1 20260—
Q2 20260—
Q3 20260—

4 cases

11 Nov 2025 Devro (Scotland) LimitedDevro (Scotland): 48,000 GBP fine for discharging industrial wastewater into burn United KingdomEmissions and permits €58,610

In July 2021, a blockage in the foul sewer at the Moodiesburn plant (collagen casings for sausages) caused untreated industrial wastewater to back up into the surface water system, polluting the Bothlin Burn with ammonia and organic load. The company pleaded guilty on 11 November 2025; on 24 March 2026, the Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA) reported a fine of 48,000 GBP plus a 3,600 GBP victim surcharge.

What organisations can take from it

On-site drainage needs monitoring and maintenance so that faults in the foul sewer do not reach watercourses via surface water pipes.

Authority / court
Airdrie Sheriff Court (Ermittlungen: SEPA, Anklage: Crown Office and Procurator Fiscal Service)
Area of law
Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
Legal basis
Regulations 4 und 44(1)(a) Water Environment (Controlled Activities) (Scotland) Regulations 2011; Section 20(3)(a) Water Environment and Water Services (Scotland) Act 2003
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Food and agriculture
Published
24 Mar 2026

Original amount 51,600 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Nov 2025.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

8 Oct 2025 Manor Farm Dairy LtdManor Farm Dairy: fine after slurry overflow into stream near Dorchester United KingdomEmissions and permits €18,635

In March 2024, cattle slurry ran from the dairy farm's lagoons into a stream, seriously damaging it over more than 2 km, with effects up to 4.5 km downstream. The court imposed a fine of 6,000 GBP (reduced from 9,000 GBP because of an early guilty plea) and 10,158.50 GBP in costs; the Environment Agency described the incident as avoidable.

What organisations can take from it

Farms must maintain sufficient slurry storage capacity and monitor lagoons.

Authority / court
Taunton Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Environment Agency)
Area of law
Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
Legal basis
Regulations 12(1)(b) und 38(1)(a) Environmental Permitting (England and Wales) Regulations 2016
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Food and agriculture
Culpability
negligent
Mitigating circumstances
Early guilty plea (fine reduced from 9,000 to 6,000 GBP).
Published
13 Oct 2025

Original amount 16,158.5 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Oct 2025.

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

26 Aug 2025 Acqua Minerale San Benedetto S.p.A.AGCM: San Benedetto removes ‘CO2 neutral’ claim on Ecogreen bottles ItalyMisleading environmental and sustainability claims Other

Labels, the website and commercials for the Ecogreen line claimed that bottle production caused no greenhouse gas emissions and even had a positive effect on the environment. Following an intervention by Italy's competition and consumer protection authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, AGCM) (moral suasion, case PS12596), the mineral water producer removed the claim ‘impatto zero CO2’ in mid-July 2025, revised nature motifs and added a QR code linking to sustainability information.

What organisations can take from it

‘Zero emissions’ promises on packaging can hardly be substantiated; it is better to present specific reduction steps transparently.

Relevance to training and awareness

Climate claims on packaging

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 PS12596
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Food and agriculture
Mitigating circumstances
Voluntary amendment of all labels and advertising materials following the authority's intervention.
Published
26 Aug 2025

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

27 Jun 2024 BGH: advertising with ‘climate neutral’ only permissible with explanation in the advertisement itself GermanyMisleading environmental and sustainability claims Order

A manufacturer of fruit gums and liquorice (not named in the official press release) advertised in a trade journal that it had produced all its products ‘climate neutral’ since 2021, although this was achieved partly through offsetting. Germany's Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) prohibited the advertising following an action brought by the Centre for Protection against Unfair Competition (Wettbewerbszentrale): ambiguous environmental terms must be explained in the advertisement itself, since reduction and offsetting are not equivalent.

What organisations can take from it

Companies advertising with ‘climate neutral’ must explain directly in the advertisement whether emissions are avoided or merely offset.

Relevance to training and awareness

Legally compliant environmental and climate claims in advertising

Authority / court
Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat)
Area of law
Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
Legal basis
§ 3 Abs. 1, § 5 Abs. 1, § 5a Abs. 1 und 3, § 8 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UWG (Az. I ZR 98/23)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Food and agriculture
Published
27 Jun 2024

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Ready for training that sticks?

Try it free for 14 days — from 1 user, no credit card, ends automatically.

Start free trial