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- Anonymised companies €2.48m 84 % · 3 cases
- Aurivo Dairy Ingredients Limited €200,000 7 % · 1 case
- Unathi-Wena Fishing CC €112,512 4 % · 1 case
- Scottish Sea Farms Limited €80,815 3 % · 1 case
- Devro (Scotland) Limited €58,610 2 % · 1 case
- Manor Farm Dairy Ltd €18,635 1 % · 1 case
- Acqua Minerale San Benedetto S.p.A. – 0 % · 1 case
- JBS USA Food Company und JBS USA Food Company Holdings – 0 % · 1 case
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 1 | – |
| 2024 | 4 | €2.6m |
| 2025 | 5 | €277,245 |
| 2026 | 1 | €80,815 |
11 cases
27 May 2026 Scottish Sea Farms LimitedScottish Sea Farms: £70,000 civil penalties over missing F-gas leak detection €80,815
Scotland's environmental regulator SEPA imposed two civil penalties of £35,000 each (£70,000 in total) on salmon processor Scottish Sea Farms. Two ice plants at the Gremista site in Lerwick (Shetland) contained fluorinated greenhouse gases above the threshold of 500 tonnes of CO2 equivalent but had no working leak detection system.
Large refrigeration systems need working leak detection; its absence is penalised even without a proven leak.
Obligations for refrigeration equipment containing fluorinated gases
- Authority / court
- Scottish Environment Protection Agency (SEPA)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
- Legal basis
- Fluorinated Greenhouse Gases Regulations 2015; Verordnung (EU) Nr. 517/2014
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- The company has since brought the equipment into compliance.
- Published
- 27 May 2026
Original amount 70,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 May 2026.
- SEPA: Salmon processor fined £70,000 over fluorinated greenhouse gas rule breaches (27.05.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
11 Nov 2025 Devro (Scotland) LimitedDevro (Scotland): 48,000 GBP fine for discharging industrial wastewater into burn €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. According to the annual accounts filed with the UK companies register for financial year 2024, the company had around 316 employees.
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
- Employees
- 250 to 999
- Published
- 24 Mar 2026
Original amount 51,600 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Nov 2025.
- Sausage casing firm fined £48,000 for polluting North Lanarkshire burn with industrial effluent Press release of an authority
- Companies House: Registereintrag Devro (Scotland) Limited (SC129787) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link
Report an error
31 Oct 2025 JBS USA Food Company und JBS USA Food Company HoldingsNew York: JBS USA pays 1.1 million USD over unsubstantiated "Net Zero 2040" claims Other
The Attorney General's office accused the US arm of the meat group JBS of publicly advertising a "net zero by 2040" goal without a viable plan to achieve it. After a first lawsuit had been dismissed without prejudice in January 2025, the parties concluded an Assurance of Discontinuance: JBS USA pays 1.1 million USD to a climate-smart agriculture programme (expressly not a fine), changes its environmental marketing and reports annually for three years. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.
Net-zero promises are advertising claims and need a verifiable implementation plan, otherwise they are treated as misleading.
Communicating climate targets only with a robust implementation plan
- Authority / court
- Office of the New York State Attorney General
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- New York General Business Law §§ 349, 350; Executive Law § 63(12), § 63(15)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 3 Nov 2025
- NY Attorney General press release: $1.1 Million for Climate-Smart Agriculture from World's Largest Beef Producer Press release of an authority
- Assurance of Discontinuance, People of the State of New York v. JBS USA Food Company (2025) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Oct 2025 Manor Farm Dairy LtdManor Farm Dairy: fine after slurry overflow into stream near Dorchester €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. The company is a micro-enterprise with fewer than 10 employees.
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
- Employees
- Under 50
- 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.
- Manor Farm Dairy in Dorset fined for slurry polluting river Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Aug 2025 Acqua Minerale San Benedetto S.p.A.AGCM: San Benedetto removes ‘CO2 neutral’ claim on Ecogreen bottles 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.
‘Zero emissions’ promises on packaging can hardly be substantiated; it is better to present specific reduction steps transparently.
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
27 Mar 2025 Aurivo Dairy Ingredients LimitedAurivo Dairy Ingredients: EUR 200,000 in fines for odour and wastewater offences €200,000
The company pleaded guilty to repeatedly breaching conditions of its industrial emissions licence at its Ballaghaderreen plant in 2022: odour nuisance, exceedance of limits for effluent and cooling water, impairment of the River Lung and late incident notifications to the EPA and Inland Fisheries Ireland. The court imposed fines totalling €200,000 for the two notification breaches and additionally ordered €150,000 to be paid over ten years to local community groups and Inland Fisheries Ireland for the river , plus investigation costs. Only the fines of EUR 200,000 are recorded as the amount.
Environmental incidents must be reported to the authority immediately through the prescribed channels; here it was the late notifications that proved most costly.
- Authority / court
- Sligo Circuit Criminal Court (Anklage: Director of Public Prosecutions nach Ermittlungen der Environmental Protection Agency)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
- Legal basis
- Bedingungen 5.1, 5.3, 11.3 und 11.5 der Industrieemissionsgenehmigung P0802-03
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 27 Mar 2025
- EPA: DPP Prosecutes Aurivo Dairy Ingredients Limited (P0802-03) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
27 Nov 2024 Unathi-Wena Fishing CCFishing in De Hoop marine protected area: fine for Unathi-Wena Fishing €112,512
On 27 November 2024 the Bredasdorp Regional Court sentenced Unathi-Wena Fishing CC, operator of the fishing vessel 'The White Rose', because the vessel had fished without authorisation in the De Hoop marine protected area on three days in May 2019; the case was investigated by the environmental inspectorate (Green Scorpions) of the Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment (national environment ministry). The court imposed 150,000 ZAR for three offences under fisheries law (MLRA) and 2,000,000 ZAR for an offence under the National Environmental Management Act, of which 1,000,000 ZAR was suspended; the catch had been seized.
A fishing permit does not automatically cover fishing in marine protected areas – operators should monitor their vessels' positions and fishing grounds continuously, as authorities can prove breaches years later using surveillance data.
Fishing permits and marine protected areas
- Authority / court
- Regional Court Bredasdorp (Ermittlungen: Department of Forestry, Fisheries and the Environment)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability
- Legal basis
- Regulation 75 Marine Living Resources Act (MLRA); Section 49A(1)(f) National Environmental Management Act (NEMA) (Bezeichnungen laut Ministeriumserklärung)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 9 Dec 2024
Original amount 2,150,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Nov 2024.
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
10 Sep 2024 a French mineral water bottler belonging to a food groupÉpinal: environmental CJIP with a mineral water bottler for €2m €2m
The bottler used nine boreholes at two sites for which no sufficiently evidenced water-law authorisation existed, and applied treatments not permitted for natural mineral water (including UV, activated carbon and microfilters), which was prosecuted as deception (tromperie). In the environmental CJIP (convention judiciaire d'intérêt public, French deferred prosecution agreement) validated on 10 September 2024, the company undertook to pay a public interest fine of 2,000,000 EUR, to fund renaturation measures of up to 1.1 million EUR and to compensate associations.
Legacy authorisations for water abstraction and production processes must be regularly checked against current law, especially for protected product designations.
Water abstraction permits and permitted treatment of mineral water
- Authority / court
- Parquet d'Épinal (Procureur de la République); Validierung durch den Präsidenten des Tribunal judiciaire d'Épinal
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Emissions and permits
- Legal basis
- Art. L. 173-1, L. 214-1, L. 214-3 Code de l'environnement; Tromperie (Code de la consommation); Art. 41-1-2, 41-1-3 Code de procédure pénale
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- According to the CJIP, the company itself disclosed the impermissible treatments to the authorities in 2021, cooperated fully and remedied the failings; no health risk was found.
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 10 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Aug 2024 a British beer importerBeer importer: £414,003.54 over breach of packaging rules €483,564
The beer importer paid £414,003.54 to an environmental charity under an enforcement undertaking and covered the agency's costs. Since 2004 the company had not registered as a packaging producer and had therefore not contributed to the recovery of its packaging waste. The amount corresponds to the costs avoided plus a 30 per cent surcharge.
Importers should check whether they must register as packaging producers; ignorance does not prevent repayment plus a surcharge.
Registration duties under extended producer responsibility for packaging
- Authority / court
- Environment Agency
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging Waste) Regulations
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- The company said it had been unaware of the regulations, offered the payment itself and is now compliant.
- Published
- 15 Aug 2024
Original amount 414,003.54 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Aug 2024.
- Environment Agency, Behördenauftritt (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 15 Aug 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
27 Jun 2024 BGH: advertising with ‘climate neutral’ only permissible with explanation in the advertisement itself 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.
Companies advertising with ‘climate neutral’ must explain directly in the advertisement whether emissions are avoided or merely offset.
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
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 27 Jun 2024
- Bundesgerichtshof, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Court press release
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 27 Jun 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
2 Feb 2023 a Swedish dairy companySwedish dairy company: court bans the advertising claim 'netto noll klimatavtryck' Order
Following an action by the Konsumentombudsmannen (KO, Swedish Consumer Ombudsman), the Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Patent and Market Court) prohibited the dairy company from using the claim 'netto noll klimatavtryck' (net zero climate footprint) or similar claims that give the impression that a product causes no climate footprint at all or that its climate impact has been fully offset when this is not the case. The prohibition is backed by a conditional fine (vite) of 1,000,000 SEK.
Climate neutrality claims based on offsetting must be accurate and fully substantiated for consumers at first glance, otherwise court bans are likely.
Climate-related advertising claims and offsetting claims
- Authority / court
- Patent- och marknadsdomstolen (Stockholms tingsrätt), auf Klage des Konsumentombudsmannen (KO)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 2 Feb 2023
- Konsumentverket, Nachrichten und Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 2 Feb 2025 · Direct link