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 €257.6m 62 % · 13 cases
- Airbnb €64.1m 16 % · 1 case
- Hopper (USA) Inc. und Hopper Inc. €30m 7 % · 1 case
- Grubhub Inc. und Grubhub Holdings Inc. €24.1m 6 % · 1 case
- Cineplex €24m 6 % · 1 case
- Grupa OLX sp. z o.o. €6.66m 2 % · 1 case
- Trustpilot Group Plc, Trustpilot A/S, Trustpilot S.r.l. €4m 1 % · 1 case
- Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. €1.39m 0 % · 1 case
- TICKETBIS S.L. (StubHub UK) €1.03m 0 % · 1 case
- GGL Projects, Inc. (Sitejabber) – 0 % · 1 case
- 5 more€0
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2023 | 7 | €239.3m |
| 2024 | 7 | €42.3m |
| 2025 | 5 | €70.7m |
| 2026 | 8 | €60.4m |
27 cases
20 Aug 2026 Hopper (USA) Inc. und Hopper Inc.FTC: travel app Hopper pays 35 million USD over hidden and pre-selected fees €30m
Despite promising no hidden fees, the travel app, according to the FTC, charged tips and fees for a VIP support service without consent because they were hidden and pre-selected, and misled users about total prices and the benefits of VIP support and price freezing. The court order against the Canadian Hopper Inc. and its US subsidiary sets 35 million USD, payable in twelve instalments. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.
Paid add-ons must never be pre-selected or hidden in the booking flow.
Pre-selected add-ons and fees in booking flows
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act; Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464)
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 2 Jul 2026
Original amount 35,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Aug 2026.
- FTC Cases and Proceedings: FTC v. Hopper (USA), Inc. Enforcement database of an authority
- Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief (entered), D. Mass. 1:26-cv-13058 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Aug 2026 Snow Corporation; SNOW Japan Co., Ltd. (SNOW Japan株式会社)Snow Corporation and SNOW Japan: orders over undisclosed paid posts on X Order
SNOW Japan, to which South Korea's Snow Corporation had left decisions on advertising content in Japan for the jointly offered service, had users of X publish posts about the AI image functions of the 'SNOW' app from April 2025 onwards, for payment and following its instructions, without making the commission recognisable; the posts were treated as advertising by both companies. On 6 August 2026 each of them received an order to stop the display of posts still online, inform consumers and take measures to prevent recurrence.
A foreign provider that leaves its advertising in Japan to a partner remains responsible for undisclosed paid posts.
Stealth marketing and disclosure of paid posts
- 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. 3 (Bekanntmachung zu Stealth-Marketing) 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
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 6 Aug 2026
- 「SNOW」と称するアプリケーションの利用サービスの提供事業者2社に対する景品表示法に基づく措置命令について (Eintrag, 06.08.2026) Press release of an authority
- News Release 06.08.2026 mit Maßnahmenanordnungen 消表対第681号 und 第682号 (PDF) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 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
6 Jul 2026 Agoda Company Pte. Ltd.Agoda: 2.424 billion KRW for unclear refund conditions and fees €1.39m
In its flight booking flow, Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. did not show clearly whether a ticket was refundable and which cancellation or change fees applied – the information could only be reached via a link to baggage rules – and, for accommodation paid later, displayed a price without the possible surcharge of up to 5%, partly in a foreign currency. The authority regarded this as a breach of the duty to explain key terms under the Telecommunications Business Act (전기통신사업법), imposed a fine of 2,424,000,000 KRW and ordered Agoda to show conditions, fees and final prices early and clearly, to check screen flows internally in advance and to have Korean translations reviewed by professionals.
Refundability, fees and the final price belong in the booking flow itself – not behind links with unrelated labels.
- Authority / court
- Korea Media and Communications Commission (KMCC, 방송미디어통신위원회)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
- Legal basis
- Telecommunications Business Act (전기통신사업법) Art. 50(1) Nr. 5-2, Art. 52, Art. 53; Enforcement Decree Art. 42 i. V. m. Anhang 4
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Reduction of 10% because the authority had not imposed a fine in the preceding three years; partial voluntary corrections made after the investigation began were not accepted as a mitigating factor.
- Published
- 6 Jul 2026
Original amount 2,424,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Jul 2026.
- KMCC, 심의·의결 제2026-22-464호 (아고다 컴퍼니 유한회사, Agoda Company Pte. Ltd.), 06.07.2026 Decision of an authority
- KMCC, Entscheidungsdatenbank 심결정보 (Eintrag Nr. 776) Enforcement database of an authority
- KMCC-Pressemitteilung vom 06.07.2026: ‘환불 조건·수수료 불명확’ 아고다에 과징금 Press release of an authority
- KMCC-Pressemitteilung vom 06.07.2026 (PDF) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 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
10 Apr 2026 StubHub Holdings, Inc.FTC: StubHub refunds 10 million USD over ticket prices shown without mandatory fees Disgorgement of profits
According to the FTC, StubHub displayed ticket prices on its website without clearly and conspicuously stating up front the total price including all mandatory fees. The court order relies on the new FTC rule against unfair or deceptive fees and requires StubHub to pay 10 million USD for consumer refunds. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.
Since the FTC fees rule, the first price shown for tickets must include all mandatory fees.
Total price display including mandatory fees (drip pricing)
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act; Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464)
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 9 Apr 2026
- FTC Cases and Proceedings: StubHub Holdings, FTC v. Enforcement database of an authority
- Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief (entered), S.D.N.Y. 1:26-cv-02924 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 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
15 Dec 2025 AirbnbConsumer ministry: €64m fine on Airbnb for listings without a licence €64.1m
The Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030 (Spanish Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and 2030 Agenda) imposed fines totalling 64,055,311 EUR on the holiday rental platform Airbnb, mainly because 65,122 listings advertised holiday homes without a licence, with a non-matching registration number or without accurate information on the legal status of the hosts (63,980,311 EUR, six times the unlawful profit). In addition, 10,000 EUR were imposed for missing information on distance contracts, 10,000 EUR for unanswered information requests and 55,000 EUR for failing to comply with interim orders; Airbnb must also remove the unlawful content and publish the sanction. The decision is not final.
In Spain, platforms can be liable under consumer law for third-party listings if they do not check mandatory information such as holiday rental registration numbers and do not remove objectionable content in time.
Platforms' responsibility for mandatory information in third-party listings
- Authority / court
- Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 47.1 Buchst. m), t), i) und o) Texto refundido de la Ley General para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 15 Dec 2025
- Consumo sanciona con 64 millones de euros a Airbnb por anunciar viviendas sin licencia (15.12.2025) Press release of an authority
- La justicia obliga a Airbnb a pagar los 64 millones de euros previstos en la multa que le impuso Consumo (23.03.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 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
12 Jun 2025 Grupa OLX sp. z o.o.UOKiK: 28.4 million PLN against OLX over misleading rating system €6.66m
From November 2020 to July 2024, users of OLX.pl could rate sellers even without having made a purchase, buyers with several purchases could not rate all sellers, and a weighted algorithm inflated positive ratings and classified below-average scores as positive; individual ratings could not be viewed. The UOKiK (Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) imposed around 28.4 million PLN by decision DOZIK-2/2025; OLX has since switched the system to averages from verified buyers. The decision was not final at the time of publication; OLX may appeal to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection.
Make sure a rating average shows what it promises – disclose any weighting, reclassification or admission of non-buyers.
- Authority / court
- Präsident des Amts für Wettbewerbs- und Verbraucherschutz (UOKiK)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Gesetz über Wettbewerbs- und Verbraucherschutz; Gesetz zur Bekämpfung unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Mitigating circumstances
- Rating system changed as of 31 July 2024.
- Published
- 12 Jun 2025
Original amount 28,420,869 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Jun 2025.
- Mylący system ocen na OLX.pl – decyzja Prezesa UOKiK Press release of an authority
- Confusing rating system at OLX.pl – decision of the President of UOKiK Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 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
31 Dec 2024 Grubhub Inc. und Grubhub Holdings Inc.FTC and Illinois: Grubhub pays 25 million USD over hidden delivery fees €24.1m
The FTC and the Illinois Attorney General alleged that the delivery service misled customers about delivery costs and blocked their accounts and balances, promised drivers inflated earnings and listed restaurants without their consent. The court order sets a judgment of 140 million USD, suspended except for a payment of 24.8 million USD to the FTC; in addition, 200,000 USD goes to Illinois (25 million USD in total). The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.
Platforms must show full final prices from the outset and may list partners only with their consent.
Total price disclosure and earnings claims on platforms
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC) und Attorney General of Illinois
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act; Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act; Impersonation Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 461); Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505); Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510)
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 17 Dec 2024
Original amount 25,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Dec 2024.
- FTC Cases and Proceedings: Grubhub Inc., FTC and Illinois v. Enforcement database of an authority
- Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction, Monetary Judgment, and Other Relief (entered), N.D. Ill. 1:24-cv-12923 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Jul 2024 an Italian public service broadcasterAGCOM fines public broadcaster €206,580 for surreptitious advertising at 2024 festival €206,580
During the 74th edition of a nationally broadcast music festival on the broadcaster's main channel, shoes of a well-known brand were repeatedly shown on screen during the appearance of an internationally known guest without the product placement being signalled. AGCOM (Italian communications regulator) classed this as surreptitious commercial communication and imposed twenty times the minimum amount, 206,580 EUR; the programme's large audience and a sanction for the same infringement at the previous year's festival were aggravating factors.
Product placements in live broadcasts must be cleared in advance and signalled so that viewers can recognise them.
Signalling product placement
- Authority / court
- Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni (AGCOM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 43 Abs. 1 lit. a und Art. 48 Abs. 3 lit. d D.Lgs. 208/2021 (Testo unico dei servizi di media audiovisivi) i. V. m. Ziff. 6.2 des RAI-Selbstregulierungskodex zur Produktplatzierung
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Repeat case
- yes
- Published
- 24 Jul 2024
- AGCOM, Beschlüsse und Maßnahmen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 24 Jul 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Jul 2024 an international accommodation reservation platform based in the NetherlandsReservation platform: HUF 382.5m for failing to comply with a GVH prohibition €977,061
In follow-up proceedings on a 2020 decision, the Competition Council of the GVH (Gazdasági Versenyhivatal, Hungarian Competition Authority) found that the reservation platform had not fully stopped the practices then prohibited: pressure-inducing urgency messages until February 2024 and statements on free cancellation until April 2024. The GVH imposed HUF 382,500,000, by its own account the highest fine ever set in follow-up proceedings.
Conditions imposed by an authority must be implemented fully and verifiably, otherwise follow-up proceedings bring a new fine.
Urgency messages and free-cancellation promises on reservation platforms
- Authority / court
- Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- § 77 Abs. 6 lit. e Tpvt. (ungarisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Gesetz LVII/1996) i. V. m. einem früheren Beschluss der Wettbewerbsbehörde
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Repeat case
- yes
- Published
- 15 Jul 2024
Original amount 382,500,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jul 2024.
- GVH, Entscheidungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 15 Jul 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
5 Jun 2024 a Canadian satellite radio providerSatellite radio: 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, the provider 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.
- Competition Bureau Canada, Meldungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 5 Jun 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 May 2024 a US social media group and its Irish subsidiaryAGCM fines social media group €3.5m over data use and account suspensions €3.5m
The group did not inform users registering for its photo and video network via the website adequately and immediately that their data are collected and used for commercial purposes (practice 1). When accounts were suspended, its other social network did not state whether the decision was automated or manual, and neither service referred to out-of-court and judicial remedies; in addition, the 30-day deadline for internal complaints was relatively short (practice 2). The AGCM fined the group and its Irish subsidiary 3,000,000 and 500,000 EUR jointly and severally, a total of 3,500,000 EUR.
Anyone exploiting user data commercially must say so clearly at registration, and account suspensions need transparent procedures and remedies.
Transparency on data use and remedies for account suspensions
- 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 (Praxis 1) sowie Art. 20 (Praxis 2) Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 5 Jun 2024
- AGCM, Suche nach Entscheidungen (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 21 May 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Mar 2024 an Irish subsidiary of a US social media companyAGCOM: €1.35m fine for social media platform over gambling advertising €1.35m
AGCOM (Italian communications regulator) found content on nine accounts on the platform bearing the blue verification tick that advertised gambling and betting sites with cash prizes, and treated each account as one infringement of the advertising ban in the "Decreto Dignità" (Dignity Decree): 1,350,000 EUR in total. Because the platform had itself blocked only seven of the nine accounts, the authority ordered the remaining two to be blocked and further unlawful content from these accounts to be prevented.
Paid verification programmes increase a platform's responsibility for the content of verified accounts.
Gambling advertising bans on social networks
- Authority / court
- Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni (AGCOM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail
- Legal basis
- Art. 9 Abs. 1 Decreto-legge 87/2018 („Decreto Dignità“), umgewandelt durch Legge 96/2018
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 12 Mar 2024
- AGCOM, Beschlüsse und Maßnahmen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 6 Mar 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
5 Mar 2024 three companies of an international social media groupAGCM fines video platform €10m for inadequate control of dangerous content €10m
The AGCM found that the platform had not adequately monitored content capable of endangering users' physical and mental safety, such as videos of the "French scar" challenge, and had repeatedly served such content through profiling-based recommender systems, particularly to minors and vulnerable users. The group's Irish, Italian and UK companies were jointly and severally fined 10,000,000 EUR and ordered not to continue the practice.
Platforms must effectively monitor compliance with their own content rules and assess their recommender systems for risks to young users.
Protection of minors, content moderation and recommender algorithms
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail
- Legal basis
- Art. 20 Abs. 2 und 3, 21 Abs. 2 lit. b und Abs. 4, 25 Abs. 1 lit. c Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 14 Mar 2024
- AGCM, Suche nach Entscheidungen (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Company name anonymised since 5 Mar 2026 · Direct link