Who was sanctioned, and for what?

According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Amazon used confusing order screens to push millions of customers into Prime subscriptions without their consent and deliberately made cancellation difficult. The settlement comprises a civil penalty of 1 billion USD and 1.5 billion USD in refunds, as well as a clear decline button and simple cancellation.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

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

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Liability of senior managers

The press release names Senior Vice President Neil Lindsay and Vice President Jamil Ghani.

Published

25 Sep 2025

Original amount 2,500,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Sep 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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 CEO Ronald Clarke are 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

CEO Ronald Clarke is named in the press release as a party involved.

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 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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).

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

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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 (VJ/6/2025)

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 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The three sharing providers made it difficult for holders of a Metrebus annual pass to access the free-ride passes promised when the concessions were awarded, through inadequate organisation, cumbersome activation and long waiting times, which shortened the usable time; Bird also deactivated accounts without prior notice. The AGCM imposed fines totalling 2.675 million EUR in three proceedings (Lime 1.4 million, Dott 525,000, Bird 750,000 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

Codice del Consumo (pratiche commerciali scorrette), Verfahren PS13028, PS13029, PS13030

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Published

6 Aug 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The car rental company charged customers an "administration fee" of 33.88 to 45 EUR when a rental car incurred a traffic offence – even though naming the driver is a statutory obligation of the rental company. Spain's Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and 2030 Agenda classified this as a very serious infringement and imposed the maximum fine of 1 million EUR; a court had already declared the clause void in 2020.

Authority / court

Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Artt. 82, 87.5 y 87.6 TRLGDCU (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Repeat case

yes

Published

29 Jul 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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).

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

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

For refunds in the event of delays of 60 minutes or more or cancellations, Trenitalia required prior written confirmation from the call centre or ticket office. The AGCM accepted binding commitments: abolition of the confirmation requirement, strengthened refund channels, an information page on disruptions and an implementation report within three months; no infringement was found.

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

Codice del Consumo (impegni); EU-Fahrgastrechte im Eisenbahnverkehr

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Mitigating circumstances

Binding commitments, no finding of an infringement.

Published

30 Jul 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

On the confirmation page of its online cancellation process, a gym operator displayed a highlighted notice with the button "Pause contract via self-service"; in addition, the confirmation button was labelled "Find contract", which the defendant had already acknowledged. In an action brought by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband), the BGH ruled that the confirmation page may only contain the information required for the cancellation and the confirmation button, set aside the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf) dismissing the action to that extent and ordered the operator to cease and desist.

Authority / court

Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat), Az. I ZR 200/25

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

§ 312k Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 2 BGB (Kündigungsbutton)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Published

16 Jul 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

According to the FTC, employees of the dietary supplement provider wrote thousands of five-star reviews, customers received free products or discounts in return for five-star reviews, and bot profiles posed as real users; in addition, there were unsubstantiated growth claims for children and adolescents. The final settlement order provides for a judgment of 4 million USD, which is partially suspended on account of limited ability to pay after payment of 750,000 USD.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; FTC Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Food and agriculture

Mitigating circumstances

Partial suspension of the judgment on account of limited ability to pay.

Liability of senior managers

The co-founders and co-CEOs Eden Stelmach and Justin Rapoport are personally parties to the order.

Published

15 Jul 2026

Original amount 750,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jul 2026.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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.

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.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

For online bookings, the driving schools only showed a mandatory booking fee at checkout instead of in the initial price. Following an admission and settlement, the CMA imposed a penalty of 4.2 million GBP (40 % discount on 7 million GBP) and ordered refunds of more than 760,000 GBP to more than 80,000 customers.

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

Other

Mitigating circumstances

Admission and early settlement (40 % discount).

Published

15 Apr 2026

Original amount 4,200,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Apr 2026.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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.

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

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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.

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.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

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 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A filling station operator (medium-sized company, name not published) did not send the originals of eight sheets from the statutory complaints book to the authority on time. The Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (Portuguese Energy Services Regulatory Authority, ERSE) imposed 16,000 EUR for eight negligent administrative offences; the Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court upheld the fine in full on 14 July 2026.

Authority / court

Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (ERSE)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Decreto-Lei n.º 156/2005 (Livro de Reclamações); Regime Jurídico das Contraordenações Económicas, Art. 18, 19

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Employees

50 to 249

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

No previous record, no economic advantage

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

According to the FTC, the telemedicine company advertised GLP-1 weight-loss programmes with monthly prices that did not include medication, laboratory costs and medical consultations, concealed the minimum term and cancellation fees, published fake testimonials from employees and relatives, and induced customers to delete negative reviews by offering vouchers or refunds. Under the final settlement order, the company and its management are paying 150,000 USD, which is earmarked for refunds.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

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

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Healthcare

Liability of senior managers

Founder Robert Epstein and CEO Frank Leonardo III are named in the press release as parties involved.

Published

3 Dec 2025

Original amount 150,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Dec 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The fashion mail-order company presented discounts in a misleading manner and exerted psychological pressure with countdowns running down by the second and scarcity notices. In addition to a fine of 505 million HUF imposed by the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH), the Hamburg-based operating company committed to paying compensation of 1,750 HUF each to all Hungarian customers who made purchases between 31 December 2022 and 31 December 2024 (estimated at over 500 million HUF) and to a consumer protection compliance programme.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken gegenüber Verbrauchern

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Acknowledgement, cooperation, customer compensation and compliance programme almost halved the fine.

Published

19 Nov 2025

Original amount 505,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Nov 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

According to the allegations of the attorneys general, the online fashion retailer enrolled buyers in a paid VIP membership programme without their express consent, presented prices in a misleading way and made cancellation difficult. Under the settlement with 32 states and D.C., TFG is providing around 3.8 million USD in automatic refunds and paying 1 million USD to the states; the settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt.

Authority / court

Attorney General of Pennsylvania (verhandelt mit Maryland, Texas und D.C.; Vergleich mit 33 Attorneys General)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Verbraucherschutzgesetze der beteiligten Bundesstaaten

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

23 Oct 2025

Original amount 4,800,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Oct 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A food discounter advertised a coffee with a price reduction without stating the lowest total price of the previous 30 days unambiguously, clearly recognisably and legibly. In an action brought by the Wettbewerbszentrale (Centre for Protection against Unfair Competition), the BGH upheld the injunction issued by the lower courts (Regional Court of Amberg, Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg).

Authority / court

Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat), Az. I ZR 183/24

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

§ 11 Abs. 1 PAngV; § 5a Abs. 1, § 5b Abs. 4 UWG

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

9 Oct 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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.

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

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

According to the FTC complaint, the education provider hid the cancellation option for its automatically renewing subscriptions on its website and, since October 2020, continued to charge almost 200,000 customers even after they had cancelled. Under the settlement, Chegg is paying 7.5 million USD for refunds and must offer simple cancellation.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

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

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Repeat case

yes

Published

15 Sep 2025

Original amount 7,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Sep 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A practice for aesthetic treatments advertised hyaluronic acid filler injections for the nose and chin on its website and on Instagram using before-and-after images. In an action brought by a consumer advice centre (Verbraucherzentrale), the BGH upheld the injunction issued by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm (OLG Hamm): such procedures are deemed to be surgical cosmetic procedures, for which this kind of advertising is prohibited.

Authority / court

Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat), Az. I ZR 170/24

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

§ 11 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Nr. 1, § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Buchst. c HWG; UKlaG

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Healthcare

Published

31 Jul 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In June 2024, the retail chain advertised the product ‘Маслиново масло екстра върджин 20% – Basso Blend’ on its website, on radio, on television and online in such a way that olive oil was in the foreground, although the product consisted of 80% sunflower oil. The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) opened proceedings of its own motion, considered the advertising misleading (Art. 32(1) in conjunction with Art. 33 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) and imposed 0.032% of 2024 turnover, i.e. 405,936 leva.

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 32 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 33 ZZK

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 405,936 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Jul 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Following an investigation into fake reviews and "catalogue abuse" (transferring good reviews to other products), Amazon undertook to the CMA to detect and remove such reviews quickly, to sanction infringing sellers up to and including a ban on selling, and to set up simple reporting channels.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Enterprise Act 2002, Part 8 (Verpflichtungszusagen nach altem Durchsetzungsregime)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Voluntary undertakings without a fine.

Published

6 Jun 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Two gym operators announced a fee increase of 6 EUR a month and treated silence or the failure to exercise a special right of termination as consent. In an action brought by the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (Bundesarbeitskammer), the OGH upheld the prohibition of such increases without express agreement and the publication of the judgment; it dismissed claims for repayment and information.

Authority / court

Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH), GZ 4 Ob 51/25s

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

§ 6 Abs. 1 Z 2, § 28a KSchG; §§ 1a, 14 UWG

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The Colosseum's ticketing service provider did not prevent tour operators from buying up basic tickets in bulk using bots, and itself reserved large allocations for more expensive packages; as a result, visitors could hardly find regular tickets. The AGCM imposed a fine of 7 million EUR on CoopCulture and further fines on six tour providers (including Tiqets, GetYourGuide, Musement), almost 20 million EUR in total.

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, comma 2 Codice del Consumo (CoopCulture); Artt. 24, 25, 23 comma 1 lett. bb-bis (Touranbieter)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Published

8 Apr 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Following a tip-off from the Military Medical Academy (VMA), the Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found that the centre presented its gynaecological practice as a VMA branch with signs reading ‘МЦ „ЛЮЛИН МЕД“ АГ – ВМА ФИЛИАЛ’ and corresponding online information. For misleading conduct (Art. 31 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) it imposed 0.4% of 2023 turnover, i.e. 9,236 leva. An appeal has been lodged against the decision.

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 31 ZZK (Irreführung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Healthcare

Original amount 9,236 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Feb 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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.

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

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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.

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

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The food supplement retailer made extensive use of prohibited medicinal claims and unauthorised health claims in its advertising, suggested false discounts with struck-through prices and did not inform customers about how customer reviews were checked. Following acknowledgement and a commitment to a compliance programme with training, the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed 100 million HUF.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken; EU-Health-Claims-Verordnung (VJ/51/2022)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Acknowledgement, waiver of legal remedies and compliance programme with internal training and membership of the advertising self-regulatory body.

Published

17 Dec 2024

Original amount 100,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Dec 2024.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Through Europark Estonia, the insurer placed advertising for motor third-party liability insurance that lacked the statutory notice referring to the insurance terms, and incorrectly stated on policies that the contracts had been concluded through a registered insurance agent. Fine of 10,000 EUR. Date = publication.

Authority / court

Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

§ 254 Abs. 2 KindlTS (Versicherungstätigkeitsgesetz); Werbegesetz

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

3 Dec 2024

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The Spanish Ministry of Consumer Affairs sanctioned Ryanair for charging for hand luggage in the cabin, surcharges for adjacent seats for children and persons requiring assistance, refusal of cash payments at airports, an excessive fee for printing boarding passes and non-transparent price information. At 107,775,777 EUR, Ryanair accounted for the largest share of the total fine of 179 million EUR imposed on five low-cost airlines.

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 TRLGDCU (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007), infracciones muy graves

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

22 Nov 2024

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In the same package of sanctions against low-cost airlines, Vueling received a fine of 39,264,412 EUR, including for fees for cabin baggage, surcharges for seats next to accompanied children and misleading omissions in the presentation of prices on its website. The order concludes the administrative proceedings; an action before the Audiencia Nacional (Spain's National High Court) could be brought within two months.

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 TRLGDCU (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007), infracciones muy graves

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Published

22 Nov 2024

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

According to the FTC, the largest US landlord of single-family homes advertised monthly rents without mandatory additional fees (for example for smart home technology or utility management), which could add up to more than 1,700 USD a year and only appeared in the lease; further allegations concerned withheld security deposits and evictions. Under the settlement, Invitation Homes is paying 48 million USD for refunds and must include mandatory fees in the advertised price.

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

final

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

24 Sep 2024

Original amount 48,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Sep 2024.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The company gave universities and schools the impression of many years of experience with international education fairs and of supposedly upcoming tours, although it had not actually held any such events; in doing so, it relied on the relationships of the applicant SRT International. The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) regarded this conduct over more than one and a half years as seriously misleading (Art. 31 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) and imposed 8% of 2023 turnover (17,000 leva), i.e. 1,360 leva, plus reimbursement of costs of 6,000.26 leva.

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 31 ZZK (Irreführung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Original amount 1,360 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Sep 2024.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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.

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.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The ACM imposed fines totalling 621,000 EUR on five online retailers because they did not base discounts on the lowest price of the previous 30 days and artificially raised initial prices. The furniture and home furnishings retailer Leen Bakker received a fine of 130,000 EUR and did not acknowledge the infringement.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Preisangabenregeln zur Preisermäßigung (Umsetzung Omnibus-Richtlinie, seit 1.1.2023)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

11 Jun 2024

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Telesales agents of the energy supplier did not identify themselves as HEM, presented the calls as "price protection" or a contract review and put the people they called under pressure; the customers ended up in expensive fixed-price contracts with high cancellation fees. The ACM imposed a fine of 1.1 million EUR.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Niederländisches Verbraucherrecht: Verbot irreführender und aggressiver Geschäftspraktiken

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Published

3 Apr 2024

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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.

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.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The furniture retail group advertised inflated regular prices and discounts derived from them, as well as countdown timers, even though the promotions were extended or replaced. It is paying a penalty of 3.25 million CAD and 100,000 CAD in costs and has committed to a compliance programme.

Authority / court

Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Competition Act (false or misleading representations; ordinary selling price)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Resolution by agreement with a compliance programme.

Published

27 Sep 2023

Original amount 3,250,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Sep 2023.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report