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 countryWhat for?
by action- Fine €500 100 % · 1 case
- Order — 0 % · 3 cases
Who?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2025 | 1 | — |
| Q4 2025 | 1 | — |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2026 | 2 | €500 |
4 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
9 Oct 2025 BGH: price reduction only permissible with a clearly legible 30-day lowest price Order
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).
In all discount advertising, state the 30-day lowest price as clearly as the discount itself.
Price information in discount advertising (30-day lowest price)
- 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
- Unzulässige Werbung mit einer Preisermäßigung (Nr. 184/2025) Court press release
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
31 Jul 2025 BGH: no before-and-after images for nose and chin correction with hyaluronic acid Order
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.
Instagram posts are also advertising – the strict limits of the law on advertising for medicinal products and treatments (Heilmittelwerberecht) apply to aesthetic procedures.
Social media advertising for healthcare services
- 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