Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 756 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.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by topicWho?
by company- Cineplex €24m 76 % · 1 case
- Trustpilot Group Plc, Trustpilot A/S, Trustpilot S.r.l. €4m 13 % · 1 case
- SiriusXM Canada €2.22m 7 % · 1 case
- TICKETBIS S.L. (StubHub UK) €1.03m 3 % · 1 case
- Spark Networks Services GmbH €441,276 1 % · 1 case
- WH Media GmbH €500 0 % · 1 case
- GGL Projects, Inc. (Sitejabber) — 0 % · 1 case
- Google — 0 % · 1 case
- Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF) — 0 % · 1 case
- Ticketmaster — 0 % · 1 case
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2023 | 1 | €441,276 |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2024 | 1 | €2.22m |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2025 | 2 | — |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2025 | 1 | — |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2026 | 2 | €28m |
| Q2 2026 | 1 | €1.03m |
| Q3 2026 | 2 | €500 |
10 cases
19 Aug 2026 WH Media GmbHKommAustria penalises person responsible for W24 over advertising in news programme €500
On 29 May 2024, the Vienna broadcaster W24 aired advertising in split screen within the programme ‘24 Stunden Wien’, did not adequately separate advertising from programming and, at around 50 minutes, significantly exceeded the permitted 12 minutes of advertising per hour. The Austrian Communications Authority (Kommunikationsbehörde Austria, KommAustria) imposed fines totalling 500 EUR (plus 50 EUR in costs) on the body authorised to represent the company externally; the GmbH is jointly and severally liable under § 9 (7) VStG (Austrian Administrative Penal Act).
Advertising time limits and the separation requirement also apply to small regional broadcasters – management is personally liable via § 9 VStG.
- Authority / court
- Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- § 64 Abs. 2 Z 9 i. V. m. §§ 43 Abs. 2, 44 Abs. 1, 45 Abs. 1 AMD-G; § 9 VStG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- No previous record, duration of proceedings, remorseful confession and remedial measures initiated.
- Liability of senior managers
- Fine imposed on the body responsible externally (§ 9 (1) VStG); the company is jointly and severally liable.
- Published
- 19 Aug 2026
- KommAustria, Straferkenntnis KOA 05.910 / 2025-0.418.178-6-A (W24) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
29 Jul 2026 Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF)KommAustria finds unlabelled product placement in ORF's ‘Sport aktuell’ Order
In the programme ‘Sport aktuell’ on ORF 1 on 29 July 2025, a logo wall was visible as product placement without being labelled. The Austrian Communications Authority (Kommunikationsbehörde Austria, KommAustria) found, with final effect, a violation of the ORF Act (ORF-Gesetz).
Product placements must be identified and labelled by the editorial team – including logo walls in the background.
Labelling of advertising and product placement
- Authority / court
- Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- § 16 Abs. 5 Z 4 ORF-G
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 29 Jul 2026
- KommAustria, Entscheidung 2025-0.606.040-3-A (ORF, Sport aktuell) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
23 Jun 2026 TICKETBIS S.L. (StubHub UK)StubHub UK: 889,200 GBP penalty over mandatory fees added later €1.03m
The ticket exchange did not include mandatory fees in the total price at the start of the purchasing process. By way of a final infringement notice, the CMA imposed a penalty of 889,200 GBP (including a 40 % settlement discount) and required the company to refund the mandatory fees.
Ticket marketplaces must also show the total price including mandatory fees from the outset.
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement with a 40 % discount and waiver of appeal.
- Published
- 23 Jun 2026
Original amount 889,200 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Jun 2026.
- StubHub UK: consumer protection enforcement case Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Mar 2026 Trustpilot Group Plc, Trustpilot A/S, Trustpilot S.r.l.Trustpilot: 4 million EUR fine for inadequate verification of the authenticity of reviews €4m
According to the AGCM, the review platform did not adequately check whether reviews – including those labelled as "verified" – were genuine, and allowed companies to invite specifically selected customers to leave reviews via paid services, which undermined the representativeness of the star ratings. In addition, information on how the platform works and on paid services was lacking; the authority also saw dark pattern elements in this.
Anyone who advertises with verified reviews must actually carry out the verification and disclose the selective collection of reviews.
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Artt. 20, 21, 22 e 23, comma 1, lett. bb-ter Codice del Consumo
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 23 Mar 2026
- PS12962 - Sanzione di 4 milioni di euro a Trustpilot per pratica commerciale scorretta Press release of an authority
- AGCM Provvedimento PS12962 (Trustpilot), adunanza del 17 marzo 2026 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Jan 2026 CineplexCineplex: Court of Appeal upholds 38.9 million CAD penalty for online booking fee €24m
The cinema company added a mandatory booking fee of 1.50 CAD to advertised ticket prices for online purchases. In September 2024, the Competition Tribunal classified this as drip pricing and imposed a penalty of 38.9 million CAD (the amount Cineplex had earned from it between June 2022 and December 2023) plus a ten-year prohibition; the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in January 2026.
An advertised price must be attainable – only government charges may be added separately.
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Appeal / Competition Tribunal (auf Antrag des Competition Bureau)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Competition Act, Deceptive Marketing Practices (Drip Pricing, seit 24.06.2022 ausdrücklich geregelt)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 23 Jan 2026
Original amount 38,900,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jan 2026.
- Statement from the Acting Commissioner of Competition on appeal court's ruling in Cineplex deceptive marketing case Press release of an authority
- Competition Bureau wins deceptive marketing case against Cineplex Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Sep 2025 TicketmasterTicketmaster commits to price transparency following Oasis presale Order
The CMA objected that, during the Oasis presale, fans in the queue were not told that standing tickets were being sold at two price levels, and that "Platinum" tickets cost almost 2.5 times as much without it being adequately explained that they offered no added value compared with some standard tickets. Without admitting liability, Ticketmaster gave undertakings: advance notice of tiered pricing, price ranges in the queue, no misleading ticket descriptions and a two-year reporting obligation.
Disclose dynamic or tiered prices before purchase; product descriptions must not suggest added value that does not exist.
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Britisches Verbraucherschutzrecht (Verfahren nach den vor April 2025 geltenden Befugnissen; Verpflichtungszusagen)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Mitigating circumstances
- Undertakings without admission of liability.
- Published
- 25 Sep 2025
- CMA secures changes from Ticketmaster following Oasis tickets investigation Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Jan 2025 GoogleGoogle commits to the CMA to tougher action against fake reviews Order
Google undertook to the CMA to improve the detection and removal of fake reviews, to ban repeat offenders worldwide, to place warnings on business profiles with manipulated reviews and deactivate their review function, and to set up simple reporting channels; the CMA will monitor implementation for three years.
Companies that buy reviews risk visible warnings and the loss of their reviews on platforms.
- Authority / court
- Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Britisches Verbraucherschutzrecht (Verpflichtungszusagen)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Mitigating circumstances
- Voluntary undertakings without a fine.
- Published
- 24 Jan 2025
- CMA secures important changes from Google to tackle fake reviews Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Jan 2025 GGL Projects, Inc. (Sitejabber)Sitejabber: review platform counted reviews before goods were received Order
According to the FTC, the AI-powered review platform collected star ratings for its business customers at the time of purchase, before customers had received the product or service, thereby inflating average ratings and review counts, including in search engine results. The FTC issued a final settlement order prohibiting such misrepresentations.
Ratings submitted before use must not be included in averages as experience-based reviews.
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 3 Jan 2025
- FTC Approves Final Order against Sitejabber Press release of an authority
- FTC Case: Sitejabber (In the Matter of GGL Projects, Inc.) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
5 Jun 2024 SiriusXM CanadaSiriusXM Canada: 3.3 million CAD for mandatory fees not included in subscription price €2.22m
The satellite radio provider advertised subscription prices without mandatory music licensing and administration fees, which increased the price by 10 to 20 %. Under the registered settlement, SiriusXM is paying a penalty of 3.3 million CAD and 30,000 CAD in investigation costs and must improve its compliance programme.
Mandatory components, even when labelled as a "fee", belong in the advertised subscription price.
Price advertising and mandatory fees
- Authority / court
- Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement beim Competition Tribunal)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Competition Act, Deceptive Marketing Practices (Drip Pricing)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Mitigating circumstances
- Resolution by agreement (consent agreement).
- Published
- 5 Jun 2024
Original amount 3,300,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 5 Jun 2024.
- Sirius to pay $3.3 million penalty to settle concerns over subscription price advertising Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 Dec 2023 Spark Networks Services GmbHDating site Elittárs: 169 million HUF for concealed restrictions €441,276
The operator of the dating site Elittárs concealed the fact that free registrations did not allow a genuine search for a partner (no profile pictures, no messages) and advertised user numbers that were not attainable for Hungarian customers. Following acknowledgement, the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed an almost halved fine of 169 million HUF.
Entry-level offers advertised as free must clearly state material restrictions.
- Authority / court
- Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken (VJ/16/2022)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Mitigating circumstances
- Cooperation, acknowledgement and waiver of legal remedies.
- Published
- 19 Dec 2023
Original amount 169,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Dec 2023.
- Megtévesztette felhasználóit az Elittárs, 169 milliós bírság lett a vége Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link