Who was sanctioned, and for what?

In 2023, a federal court found by way of summary judgment that the fuel card provider had charged its predominantly small business customers hidden or unauthorised fees and misrepresented savings; an appeals court upheld this in 2026. According to the FTC, the fees added up to hundreds of millions of dollars, and late fees were also charged despite punctual payment. Under the settlement resolving the administrative proceedings, FleetCor and a further settling party are jointly paying 100 million USD for refunds; the order is not yet final.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

17 Sep 2026

Original amount 100,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

The FCA publicly censured the corporate finance firm Equity for Growth (Securities) Limited. The FCA found that between January 2018 and August 2019 the firm approved seven information memoranda for four unregulated minibond issuers as financial promotions. In the FCA's view, these documents omitted key information, such as the level and range of commissions, so investors could not properly assess the risk. Because the firm was wound up by the court in March 2026 on the FCA's petition, no fine was imposed; the FCA stated that it would otherwise have been £386,467 (including disgorgement).

Authority / court

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

COBS 4.2.1(1)R; section 205 FSMA 2000 (Public Censure)

Action

Reprimand or warning

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

Between 2018 and 2020 the since-collapsed CFD issuer Union Standard and its two authorised representatives EuropeFX and TradeFred pushed inexperienced and vulnerable customers into trading risky contracts for difference using aggressive sales tactics; customers lost more than AUD 83 million, while in most cases the representatives profited from those losses. The Court imposed AUD 156.7 million on Union Standard, AUD 114.1 million on EuropeFX and AUD 29.4 million on TradeFred, together with a permanent ban on EuropeFX and an obligation for it to refund customers’ net deposits. For the first time a licensee was also penalised for distributing CFDs to customers in China although it knew or ought to have known of their legal risk.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

ASIC Act 2001 (Cth): Verbot von unconscionable conduct und irreführenden Angaben; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): Pflicht des Lizenzinhabers zu effizienter, ehrlicher und fairer Leistungserbringung

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

12 Jun 2026

Original amount 300,200,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The AGCM objected to three unfair commercial practices by Revolut: unclear information that investors sometimes acquire only fractional shares, together with misleading "0% commission" advertising; unclear information on account blocks and their aggressive implementation without adequate prior notice or support; and missing information on the requirements and time needed to obtain an Italian IBAN. Fines of 5,000,000 EUR against Revolut Group Holdings Ltd and Revolut Securities Europe UAB, and of 5,000,000 and 1,500,000 EUR against Revolut Group Holdings Ltd and Revolut Bank UAB, each jointly and severally, were imposed, totalling 11,500,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

For the IBAN practice, the AGCM took into account measures that Revolut took on its own initiative during the proceedings.

Published

2 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The FCA directed the claims management company Conclusive Financial Limited, which also trades as “PCP Refunds”, with immediate effect to remove adverts for motor finance compensation claims and to refrain from similar adverts in future. The adverts used, without permission, edited video clips of the founder of a well-known consumer finance website as well as the FCA logo, presented the firm's authorised status as a mark of quality, cited an unsubstantiated average refund of 1,846 GBP and did not adequately explain the fees charged for its “No Win, No Fee” service.

Authority / court

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

s. 137S FSMA 2000; CMCOB 3.2.1R, 3.2.7R und 3.2.9R

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

14 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

In December 2024 Bank Nagelmackers published, as paid partner content in a magazine, an interview about a sub-fund of its SICAV without identifying it as advertising and without first submitting it to the FSMA (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority) for approval. References to the prospectus, the key information document and investor rights, the main risks and the costs were missing, and the benefits were highlighted without presenting the risks equally prominently. Under the settlement the bank pays 60,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Autoriteit voor Financiële Diensten en Markten / Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA) – Directiecomité (minnelijke schikking)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 60 § 3 und Art. 64 Gesetz vom 3. August 2012 über Organismen für gemeinsame Anlagen; Art. 35–43 KE vom 12. November 2012; Art. 4 Verordnung (EU) 2019/1156; Art. 71 § 3 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Online version removed about ten days after publication, approval process tightened with a systematic double check; subscriptions did not increase afterwards.

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The bank lacked adequate systems to give borrowers and, in some cases, guarantors the legally required information about their loans, and in some cases did not apply agreed interest rate discounts on home loans; up to 11,398 borrowers and up to 3,012 guarantors were affected. Following a settlement with the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's competition, consumer and credit regulator), the High Court declared breaches of the responsible lending principles (s 9C CCCFA) and imposed an allegedly agreed civil pecuniary penalty of 3.64 million NZD, according to the Commission the highest under the CCCFA so far. Westpac had self-reported the conduct and refunded 2.67 million NZD to those affected.

Authority / court

High Court (Klage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 9C(1), 9C(2)(a)(ii), 9C(2)(a)(iii)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Self-report, admission of the breaches before proceedings were filed and refunds of 2.67 million NZD to those affected.

Published

28 Nov 2025

Original amount 3,640,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Nov 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

IVASS (Italian insurance supervisor) imposed a fine of 533,000 EUR on Genertel S.p.A. under Art. 310(1) of the Private Insurance Code (CAP). In 198 motor third-party liability claims between 1 September 2023 and 29 February 2024, the insurer failed to meet the statutory deadlines for making a compensation offer to the injured party or giving reasons for rejecting the claim. According to IVASS statistics, this was the largest single fine of 2025.

Authority / court

IVASS (Istituto per la Vigilanza sulle Assicurazioni)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Art. 141, 148, 149, 150 und 310 Abs. 1 D.Lgs. 209/2005 (CAP); Art. 8 D.P.R. 254/2006

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

31 Dec 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The Swedish financial supervisory authority Finansinspektionen (FI) examined consumer loans granted by the lender over four weeks in summer 2024 and found at least around 30 cases in which consumers without the ability to repay received loans. FI issued a remark and imposed 20 million SEK.

Authority / court

Finansinspektionen (FI)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Konsumentkreditlagen (2010:1846), Kreditprüfung

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

11 Nov 2025

Original amount 20,000,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Nov 2025.

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

During an inspection, the Finantsinspektsioon (Estonian Financial Supervision Authority) found that Inbank Finance’s internal rules on assessing the creditworthiness of consumers did not fully comply with the law and that the assessment itself showed deficiencies. It issued an order requiring the company to remedy the deficiencies by mid-December. Date = publication.

Authority / court

Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Gesetz über Kreditgeber und -vermittler (KAVS), verantwortungsvolle Kreditvergabe

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

14 Oct 2025

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

By way of a penalty order, the ČNB (Czech National Bank) fined UniCredit Bank Czech Republic and Slovakia 6,000,000 CZK for breaching the duty of professional care under the Banking Act. In 2023 and 2024 the bank settled foreign-currency card payments, contrary to its own card terms, at its own exchange rate, which was less favourable to customers, instead of the VISA rate, affecting 75,712 transactions of 9,467 customers and 16,896 transactions of 2,271 customers. Compensation of customers only began some ten to eleven months later.

Authority / court

Česká národní banka (ČNB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

§ 12 Abs. 3, § 36e Abs. 1 lit. o und Abs. 6 lit. c Zákon č. 21/1992 Sb. (Bankengesetz)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Original amount 6,000,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE) fined an unnamed finance company AED 600,000 under Article 137 of the central bank law (Decretal Federal Law No. 14 of 2018). Examinations had found that the company had failed to comply with the central bank's Market Conduct and Consumer Protection Regulations and Standards.

Authority / court

Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Art. 137 Decretal Federal Law No. (14) of 2018; CBUAE Market Conduct and Consumer Protection Regulations and Standards

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

6 Aug 2025

Original amount 600,000 AED, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Aug 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Between December 2023 and February 2024, Svea Finance’s internal rules on consumer lending did not comply with the law (50,000 EUR), and the company concluded credit agreements without assessing all prescribed creditworthiness components (150,000 EUR). Fines totalling 200,000 EUR for two misdemeanours. Date = publication.

Authority / court

Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

§ 98 Abs. 2 und § 99 Abs. 2 KAVS

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

11 Jun 2025

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

On application by the Hrvatska narodna banka (HNB, Croatian National Bank), the Općinski prekršajni sud u Zagrebu (Zagreb Municipal Misdemeanour Court) convicted OTP banka d.d. of nine misdemeanours under consumer credit, residential mortgage credit, credit institutions and consumer protection law, including because consumer credit agreements concluded between September 2021 and December 2022 lacked information on the total amount payable, on the assumptions used to calculate the annual percentage rate and on the supervisory authority. The bank received fines totalling 117,070 EUR; the judgment has been final since 18 July 2025.

Authority / court

Općinski prekršajni sud u Zagrebu (auf Antrag der Hrvatska narodna banka)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Art. 26, 27 Zakon o potrošačkom kreditiranju; Art. 361.b Zakon o kreditnim institucijama; Art. 41 Zakon o stambenom potrošačkom kreditiranju; Art. 138 Zakon o zaštiti potrošača

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Repeat case

yes

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

From 6 December 2023 to 24 February 2024, Bondora concluded consumer credit agreements without assessing all criteria provided for by law and satisfying itself of the borrowers’ ability to repay. In misdemeanour proceedings, the Finantsinspektsioon (Estonian Financial Supervision Authority) imposed 200,000 EUR. Date = publication.

Authority / court

Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

§ 99 Abs. 2 KAVS

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

30 Apr 2025

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

A social-media campaign by the bank in December 2023 (#KeFestive), featuring a well-known public figure, presented personal loans as an investment; the authority found this factually incorrect and misleading and also identified weaknesses in the approval process for advertising. Of the 700,000 ZAR penalty, 200,000 ZAR was suspended for two years; the bank has paid 500,000 ZAR. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Sections 6(1), 6(3)(a), 6(3)(b) und 6(9) Conduct Standard 3 of 2020 (Banks)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation during the investigation and prompt remedial action; 200,000 ZAR suspended for two years, provided the bank complies with the Conduct Standard.

Published

22 Apr 2025

Original amount 700,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Apr 2025.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Between 2016 and 2018 Allianz Australia and AWP, the company marketing and administering travel insurance on Allianz’s behalf, published online information on travel insurance that stated maximum benefits without adequately pointing out sub-limits, conditions and exclusions. The Court convicted Allianz on six counts at AUD 2.25 million each (AUD 13.5 million) and AWP on one count at AUD 3.3 million, in each case after a 25% discount for early guilty pleas. 781 customers had previously received compensation totalling AUD 1,264,864.

Authority / court

Supreme Court of New South Wales (Anklage des Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions nach Ermittlungen der ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

ss 1041E(1), 1311(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity, voluntary disclosure, full cooperation with the investigating authorities and compensation of affected customers.

Liability of senior managers

In 2016 a General Manager declined an external legal review of the website estimated at AUD 25,000 to 30,000; the Court saw the cause of the offences in an unwillingness to spend money on adequate oversight.

Published

28 Feb 2025

Original amount 16,800,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Feb 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The Banca d'Italia (Bank of Italy) imposed a fine of 480,000 EUR on Banco di Desio e della Brianza S.p.A. under Art. 144 of the Consolidated Banking Act (TUB). An inspection from 2 October to 15 December 2023 found shortcomings in organisation and controls for compliance with the rules on transparency and fair treatment of customers, including Arts. 117-bis, 126-septies and 126-quinquiesdecies et seq. TUB; the bank's corrective measures were taken into account.

Authority / court

Banca d'Italia

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Art. 127 Abs. 01 TUB i. V. m. Art. 117-bis, 126-septies und 126-quinquiesdecies bis 126-septiesdecies TUB; Transparenzbestimmungen der Banca d'Italia vom 29.07.2009; Art. 144 TUB

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

The bank's corrective measures were taken into account in setting the fine.

Published

14 Mar 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to the CFPB, Equifax did not properly reinvestigate disputes about credit report entries, allowed deleted entries to be reinserted, informed consumers inadequately of the results and did not block entries resulting from identity theft as required (Fair Credit Reporting Act). The company also sold inaccurate credit scores after test code had been introduced into a production server; the order imposes a fine of 15 million USD. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c, 1681e, 1681i); Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, §§ 1031, 1036

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

17 Jan 2025

Original amount 15,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Jan 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The CFPB found that Block did not effectively prevent and address fraud on Cash App, handled disputes and chargebacks unfairly, did not provide effective customer service, misled users about protection against unauthorised transfers and breached error-resolution duties under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. The order imposes a fine of 55 million USD and requires 75 million USD for redress, which may rise to up to 120 million USD (up to 175 million USD in total). The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment. The amount field records only the civil monetary penalty.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536); Electronic Fund Transfer Act und Regulation E (12 C.F.R. §§ 1005.6, 1005.7, 1005.11, 1005.13, 1005.18)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

16 Jan 2025

Original amount 55,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jan 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link