Who was sanctioned, and for what?

In 2021, the operators of the online retailer eMAG had committed to a support programme for Hungarian businesses, but once again implemented it only partially and not with the prescribed content. In the follow-up review, the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed 225 million HUF; in total, the operators have already received fines of 710 million HUF.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Nachprüfungsverfahren zu verbindlichen Zusagen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

The companies acknowledged the failures and waived legal remedies.

Published

13 Aug 2026

Original amount 225,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Aug 2026.

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

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).

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.

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

A national advertising campaign from January 2020 to August 2021 promised purchases at Harvey Norman with 60 months interest free and no deposit, but concealed that a credit card such as the Latitude GO Mastercard was required, with monthly account fees and, until March 2021, establishment fees. After liability was established in 2024 and upheld on appeal in 2025, the Court set penalties of AUD 35 million against Harvey Norman and AUD 20 million against Latitude and ordered corrective notices on the home pages for 90 days. It based the higher penalty for Harvey Norman on its lower level of contrition.

Authority / court

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

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

ss 12DB(1)(a), (g), (i), 12DF(1) ASIC Act 2001 (Cth); Haftungsfeststellung auch zu s 12DA(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

In the Court’s view Latitude showed contrition; the advertising complained of had ceased.

Liability of senior managers

The Court regarded public statements by Harvey Norman’s board chair as showing disregard for potential harm to consumers and therefore considered a higher penalty necessary.

Published

28 Jul 2026

Original amount 55,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Jul 2026.

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

According to the Attorney General's office, the company sold an annual shipping subscription ("Celebrations Passport") whose terms between February 2021 and June 2022 appeared only in small print, in linked terms or in pop-up boxes; a post-purchase acknowledgement and a notice before automatic renewal were missing. In the Assurance of Discontinuance it undertakes to pay 375,000 USD in penalties, fees and costs, to refund subscribers and to change its subscription processes. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Office of the New York State Attorney General

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

New York General Business Law §§ 349, 527-a; Executive Law § 63(12); Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (15 U.S.C. § 8403)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

22 Jul 2026

Original amount 375,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jul 2026.

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

On its Allegro account, the electronics retailer promised dispatch within 24 hours even for goods not in stock and did not inform customers in good time of delays or unavailability. UOKiK imposed a fine of 3,043,000 PLN; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

26 Jun 2026

Original amount 3,043,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Jun 2026.

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

From January 2024 to December 2025, the online retailer advertised time-limited discounts with countdown timers which, once they had expired, restarted with a new timer on identical terms. The AGCM classified this artificial scarcity as a particularly insidious dark pattern and imposed a fine of 2 million 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

Codice del Consumo (pratiche commerciali scorrette)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

25 Jun 2026

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

Using its new powers under the DMCCA 2024, the CMA found that the electrical retailer had pre-selected and charged customers on its website for paid extra services (removal of the old appliance, packaging disposal) without their express consent during the period examined, April to November 2025. It imposed a fine of GBP 720,000 (GBP 1,200,000 before a 40% settlement discount) and required the company to refund the amounts charged in this way to affected customers (around GBP 600,000 according to the CMA).

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Regulation 40 Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013; Chapter 4 Part 3 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

40% discount for admission and settlement (including waiver of appeal); the practice was stopped on the day the investigation was opened.

Published

18 Jun 2026

Original amount 720,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jun 2026.

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

GEO Store advertised, among other channels on the official GEO account on X, for example from 12 May to 8 June 2025, a 10% bonus on buy-back prices for used smartphones and tablets that was said to apply only until a certain date. In fact, the same or higher bonuses were available afterwards; the investigation was conducted jointly with the Chubu office of the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC, 公正取引委員会).

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

11 Jun 2026

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

From 26 August 2020 to 15 May 2022, Coupang advertised a 'WOW Member Price' below the regular selling price in its online shop without disclosing that it included a coupon redeemable only once by new members of its paid WOW subscription. The KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission, Korea's competition and consumer authority) treated the omission of this information as deceptive advertising, issued a corrective order and imposed a fine of KRW 500 million, the statutory maximum fixed-amount fine.

Authority / court

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (täuschende Werbung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

9 Jun 2026

Original amount 500,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jun 2026.

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

On the auction website Ticketveiling.nl, House of Tickets B.V. drove up the prices of auctioned lots with automatic bids placed by an algorithm and misled consumers about how the final price came about. The ACM (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, Dutch competition and consumer authority) considered 300,000 EUR appropriate and reduced the fine by 10% to 270,000 EUR because the company admitted the infringements in the simplified procedure; it decided not to fine Ticketveiling B.V.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 8.8 Whc i. V. m. Art. 6:193c Abs. 1 lit. d und Art. 6:193g lit. v BW

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

10% reduction for admitting the infringements and cooperating in the simplified procedure; the infringements were short and ended voluntarily before the investigation began.

Published

28 May 2026

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

On a claim brought by the CMA, the High Court made a consent order in which the Emma companies accepted that they had used misleading countdown timers, inaccurate high-demand messages and misleading discount claims. They gave undertakings to the court that are enforceable and must put compliance measures in place with reporting to the CMA; the dispute over was/now reference pricing was tried separately, and in its judgment of 30 July 2026 the court found only the admitted infringements.

Authority / court

High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts (Klägerin: Competition and Markets Authority)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

section 217 Enterprise Act 2002 (Enforcement order wegen Schedule 13 Infringements)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

28 May 2026

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

The online retailer sold household appliances and electronics on instalments and, between September 2021 and February 2025, calculated interest in more than 38,000 credit contracts on the total contract amount instead of the unpaid balance; customers paid almost AUD 20 million too much as a result. Sample contracts also exceeded the statutory annual cost rate cap of 48%. The Court imposed AUD 32 million for the interest calculation and AUD 1.5 million for exceeding the cap, and ordered publication of a notice.

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

s 24(1) National Credit Code (Anhang 1 zum National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)) i. V. m. ss 23(1), 28, 32A(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

18 May 2026

Original amount 33,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 May 2026.

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

The CCPC found that the retailer had not stated the correct prior price for price reductions on brownthomas.com and arnotts.ie during the 2024/2025 winter sales. The company pleaded guilty in January 2026; in March 2026 the court ordered a donation of €1,000 to a charity and struck out the charges without conviction.

Authority / court

Dublin District Court (Anklage: Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Regulation 5A European Communities (Requirements to Indicate Product Prices) Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 639/2002), geändert durch S.I. No. 597/2022

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

5 Jul 2026

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

According to the FTC and eleven states, Walmart misled the drivers of its Spark Driver delivery service about base pay, incentives and tips, so that they lost tens of millions of dollars in earnings. The court order comprises judgments of 100 million USD: 89 million USD for the FTC (of which 10 million USD is paid and 16,175,302 USD goes into a driver fund, the remainder suspended because of back payments already made) and 11 million USD for the states. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mit elf Bundesstaaten (AZ, CA, CO, IL, MI, NC, OK, PA, SC, UT, WI)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 6801–6809, 6821–6827); Verbraucherschutzgesetze der klagenden Bundesstaaten

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

26 Feb 2026

Original amount 100,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Mar 2026.

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

From April to October 2021 the Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC, Quebec's consumer protection office) checked the prices of seven advertised products in flyers, online and in three stores in the greater Montréal area: the regular prices cited as the reference were actually charged in only a very small share of sales. Canadian Tire pleaded guilty, for five of the products, to stating false reference prices contrary to s. 225(b) of the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC, Quebec Consumer Protection Act) and must pay fines totalling CAD 1,287,550 including costs on 74 counts.

Authority / court

Gericht in Montréal (Ermittlung: Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC); Anklage: Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP))

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Loi sur la protection du consommateur (RLRQ c. P-40.1), Art. 225 b)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

6 Feb 2026

Original amount 1,287,550 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Feb 2026.

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

According to the AGCM, eDreams misled consumers about the alleged benefits of its "Prime" subscription using deceptive design elements and manipulative techniques and pushed them into membership (practice A); it also made it hard to leave the subscription (practice B). Vacaciones eDreams S.L., eDreams International Network S.L. and eDreams S.r.l. were jointly and severally fined 6,000,000 and 3,000,000 EUR, a total of 9,000,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Art. 20, 21, 22, 23 Abs. 1 lit. g, 24, 25, 26 lit. f Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

4 Feb 2026

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

Zalando did not display the lowest price of the previous 30 days for discounts, manipulated reference prices to make reductions appear larger and did not present the mandatory information consistently at all stages of the purchasing process. Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) imposed a fine of 30,945,000 PLN; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Polnische Umsetzung der Omnibus-Richtlinie (Preisangaben bei Preisermäßigungen); Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

14 Jan 2026

Original amount 30,945,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Jan 2026.

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

The operator of the Temu interface omitted the 30-day lowest price or stated it incorrectly, labelled promotions inconsistently and changed reference prices from day to day without the actual price changing. UOKiK imposed a fine of 5,910,900 PLN; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Polnische Umsetzung der Omnibus-Richtlinie (Preisangaben bei Preisermäßigungen); Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

14 Jan 2026

Original amount 5,910,900 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Jan 2026.

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

According to the FTC, Instacart advertised free delivery but charged mandatory service fees of up to 15 %, promised a "100 % satisfaction guarantee" without providing full refunds and did not sufficiently point out the subsequent charges for trial subscriptions. Under the settlement, the company is paying 60 million USD for refunds and must discontinue the practices complained of.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Published

18 Dec 2025

Original amount 60,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Jan 2026.

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

The supermarket chain advertised promotions such as "Special Wednesday" with "100 % money back as a voucher", but did not state restrictions concerning product categories, minimum spend and use of the vouchers in radio, app and in-store advertising, only on the receipt, the website or in-store notices. UOKiK imposed a fine of 104,722,016 PLN; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen (irreführende Werbung durch Unterlassen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Culpability

intentional

Published

4 Dec 2025

Original amount 104,722,016 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Dec 2025.

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