Compliance Radar

Who was sanctioned, and for what?

Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific: 1,838 cases from 37 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.

New Zealand Consumer protection and online retail Retail and e-commerce Clear all filters

2cases from 1 jurisdiction

€978,792Total of monetary amounts

€562,720Largest single case: Brand Developers Limited (The TV Shop)

€489,396Median per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

by amount by number of cases

Where?

by authority

District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission) €562,720 57 % · 1 case
Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Commerce Commission) €416,072 43 % · 1 case

What for?

by topic

Who?

by company

When?

per quarter, by date of decision

Trend
Period	Cases	Total
Q4 2023	0	–
Q1 2024	0	–
Q2 2024	0	–
Q3 2024	0	–
Q4 2024	0	–
Q1 2025	0	–
Q2 2025	0	–
Q3 2025	0	–
Q4 2025	1	€416,072
Q1 2026	0	–
Q2 2026	0	–
Q3 2026	1	€562,720
Q4 2026	0	–

2 cases

Newest first Highest amounts

6 Aug 2026 Brand Developers Limited (The TV Shop)The TV Shop: 1,104,000 NZD for manipulated online reviews and misleading claims New ZealandFake reviews €562,720

The company behind The TV Shop had its own staff post positive product reviews without disclosing the connection, and published one- to three-star reviews only if customers responded to a follow-up email. It also gave customers the impression that they had no rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act beyond a 30-day money-back guarantee, and advertised an accessory pack for the Air Roaster Pro as “free” although it was always included. After a guilty verdict on 13 charges, the District Court imposed 1,104,000 NZD on 6 August 2026; the company had already been fined in 2015 (153,000 NZD) and 2022 (123,500 NZD).

What organisations can take from it

Staff reviews without disclosure and filtering out negative reviews are misleading – review processes need clear rules and oversight.

Relevance to training and awareness

Authenticity of online reviews and accurate statements on consumer rights

Authority / court: District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission)
Area of law: Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
Legal basis: Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 10, 13(e), 13(i), 40(1)
Action: Fine
Status of proceedings: unknown
Sector: Retail and e-commerce
Culpability: intentional
Repeat case: yes
Liability of senior managers: According to the sentencing decision, managers and executives knew about the review practices and at times directed them themselves.
Published: 11 Aug 2026

Original amount 1,104,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Aug 2026.

Sources

Commerce Commission: The TV Shop to pay $1.104m for conduct that included misleading customers (11.08.2026) Press release of an authority
Commerce Commission, Case register: Brand Developers Limited t/a TV Shop (PRJ0046693) Official register or notice

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

Report an error

16 Oct 2025 HelloFresh New Zealand LimitedHelloFresh New Zealand: 845,000 NZD for misleading reactivation of subscriptions New ZealandMisleading advertising and pricing €416,072

Between February 2022 and July 2023 the meal-kit provider called former customers, ostensibly to gather feedback but mainly to offer them discount vouchers, without making clear that accepting could reactivate their paid subscription; after more than a million call attempts, almost 80,000 subscriptions were reactivated. After pleading guilty to five charges under s 11 of the Fair Trading Act, the company was fined 845,000 NZD on 16 October 2025.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone reactivating subscriptions by phone must state clearly before the customer agrees that paid deliveries will resume, and must respect a refusal.

Relevance to training and awareness

Subscription traps and informed consent in telephone sales

Authority / court: Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Commerce Commission)
Area of law: Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis: Fair Trading Act 1986, s 11
Action: Fine
Status of proceedings: final
Sector: Retail and e-commerce
Published: 17 Oct 2025

Original amount 845,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Oct 2025.

Sources

Commerce Commission: HelloFresh guilty of misleading subscriptions (17.10.2025) Press release of an authority
Commerce Commission, Case register: HelloFresh New Zealand Limited (PRJ0046462) Official register or notice

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

Report an error

How the radar is compiled

Official sources only

Every case is based on a decision, press release or database of an authority or a court. Press and law-firm reports count at most as additional references.

Four-eyes check

Whoever enters a case may not approve it. A second, independent check compares company, date, amount and area of law with the source. Only then is the case published.

Comparable amounts

Amounts are converted at the ECB reference rate on the day of the decision. Each case also shows the original amount.

Corrections on record

A correction is a new version that is checked again. Every change is logged. You can report errors directly on each case.

Case texts are translated from the German original. Where a translation is not yet available, the German text is shown and marked “(German original)”. Names of authorities, laws and companies are given as in the source (company names until they are anonymised).

Company names are anonymised two years after the decision in a case, in line with the practice of many supervisory authorities. The official sources remain linked.

The radar reports on published decisions and is not legal advice. Decisions that are not yet final are marked as such where the status is known.

Embed the radar on your website

Ready for training that actually lands?