Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America and Asia-Pacific: 1,833 cases from 37 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 authority- Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC) 3 cases 38 % · €236.4m
- NSW Fair Trading 2 cases 25 % ·
- Consumer Affairs Victoria / Federal Court of Australia 1 case 13 % · €366,010
- Consumer Protection WA (Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety) / Perth Magistrates Court 1 case 13 % · €132,345
- Supreme Court of New South Wales (Anklage des Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions nach Ermittlungen der ASIC) 1 case 13 % · €10m
What for?
by topic- Misleading advertising and pricing 5 cases 63 % · €44.1m
- no topic 3 cases 38 % · €202.8m
Who?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q4 2023 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2025 | 1 | €10m |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2025 | 1 | – |
| Q1 2026 | 1 | €132,345 |
| Q2 2026 | 4 | €203.1m |
| Q3 2026 | 1 | €33.7m |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
8 cases
28 Jul 2026 Harvey Norman Holdings Ltd; Latitude Finance AustraliaHarvey Norman and Latitude: AUD 55m penalties for misleading interest-free advertising €33.7m
A national advertising campaign from January 2020 to August 2021 promised purchases at Harvey Norman with 60 months interest free and no deposit, but concealed that a credit card such as the Latitude GO Mastercard was required, with monthly account fees and, until March 2021, establishment fees. After liability was established in 2024 and upheld on appeal in 2025, the Court set penalties of AUD 35 million against Harvey Norman and AUD 20 million against Latitude and ordered corrective notices on the home pages for 90 days. It based the higher penalty for Harvey Norman on its lower level of contrition.
Anyone advertising finance offers must disclose the credit products required and their costs as clearly as the headline offer.
Transparent advertising of instalment and credit offers
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- ss 12DB(1)(a), (g), (i), 12DF(1) ASIC Act 2001 (Cth); Haftungsfeststellung auch zu s 12DA(1)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Mitigating circumstances
- In the Court’s view Latitude showed contrition; the advertising complained of had ceased.
- Liability of senior managers
- The Court regarded public statements by Harvey Norman’s board chair as showing disregard for potential harm to consumers and therefore considered a higher penalty necessary.
- Published
- 28 Jul 2026
Original amount 55,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Jul 2026.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 Jun 2026 OzCar Pty LtdUsed car dealer OzCar: reprimand and licence conditions over unfair sales practices Fine
NSW Fair Trading (the consumer protection regulator of New South Wales) reprimanded used car dealer OzCar Pty Ltd on 22 June 2026 and imposed conditions on its dealer licence. The regulator refers to the maximum available in disciplinary proceedings and does not state the amount imposed on the company. The investigation found a pattern of dishonest conduct between 2023 and 2025; among other things, customers reported being pressured into signing or misled about the purpose of contracts, that contracts were not properly explained – including to particularly vulnerable buyers – and that vehicles of unacceptable quality were sold. Among other things, the company must introduce a compliance programme with training for sales staff, may no longer allow waivers of the statutory cooling-off right to be pre-filled, and must fix defects affecting safety or reliability before sale.
Waivers of a cooling-off right must never be pre-selected, and contracts must be demonstrably explained to customers – especially vulnerable buyers.
Fair sales conversations, cooling-off rights and dealing with vulnerable customers
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- NSW Fair Trading
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (NSW), s 45(1)(a), (b), (d) und (d1)(ii)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Automotive
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 24 Sep 2026
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
11 Jun 2026 Union Standard International Group Pty Ltd; Maxi EFX Global AU Pty Ltd (EuropeFX); BrightAU Capital Pty Ltd (TradeFred)Union Standard and two CFD intermediaries: record penalties of AUD 300.2m €182.1m
Between 2018 and 2020 the since-collapsed CFD issuer Union Standard and its two authorised representatives EuropeFX and TradeFred pushed inexperienced and vulnerable customers into trading risky contracts for difference using aggressive sales tactics; customers lost more than AUD 83 million, while in most cases the representatives profited from those losses. The Court imposed AUD 156.7 million on Union Standard, AUD 114.1 million on EuropeFX and AUD 29.4 million on TradeFred, together with a permanent ban on EuropeFX and an obligation for it to refund customers’ net deposits. For the first time a licensee was also penalised for distributing CFDs to customers in China although it knew or ought to have known of their legal risk.
Licensees cannot outsource responsibility for distribution through authorised representatives and must actively monitor their sales practices.
Licensees’ responsibility for authorised representatives and distribution of complex leveraged products to retail clients
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail
- Legal basis
- ASIC Act 2001 (Cth): Verbot von unconscionable conduct und irreführenden Angaben; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): Pflicht des Lizenzinhabers zu effizienter, ehrlicher und fairer Leistungserbringung
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Published
- 12 Jun 2026
Original amount 300,200,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Jun 2026.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 May 2026 Walker Stores Pty Ltd (in Liquidation), Handelsname SnaffleSnaffle operator Walker Stores: AUD 33.5m penalty for overcharging credit interest €20.6m
The online retailer sold household appliances and electronics on instalments and, between September 2021 and February 2025, calculated interest in more than 38,000 credit contracts on the total contract amount instead of the unpaid balance; customers paid almost AUD 20 million too much as a result. Sample contracts also exceeded the statutory annual cost rate cap of 48%. The Court imposed AUD 32 million for the interest calculation and AUD 1.5 million for exceeding the cap, and ordered publication of a notice.
Anyone selling goods on instalments must have interest calculations and cost caps technically checked before thousands of contracts are affected.
Correct interest calculation and compliance with cost caps in instalment credit
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail
- Legal basis
- s 24(1) National Credit Code (Anhang 1 zum National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)) i. V. m. ss 23(1), 28, 32A(1)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 18 May 2026
Original amount 33,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 May 2026.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Apr 2026 White Ray Oakleigh Pty Ltd (Ray White Oakleigh)Federal Court: 600,000 AUD against former operator of Ray White Oakleigh for underquoting €366,010
Following action by Consumer Affairs Victoria (the consumer protection regulator of the state of Victoria), the Federal Court of Australia ordered White Ray Oakleigh Pty Ltd, former operator of the Ray White Oakleigh agency, to pay 600,000 AUD because between February 2022 and November 2023 it advertised nine properties well below market value and at prices it did not itself expect to achieve (underquoting). According to the regulator, the agency agreements often provided for considerably higher commission on proceeds above the reserve price, and vendors were persuaded to lower their reserves after signing; text messages between the agents showed that they expected considerably higher prices. The court found misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations.
Prices in property advertising must reflect the agent's genuine estimate; commission models that reward bait pricing are a compliance risk in their own right.
Truthful price information in property advertising (underquoting)
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Victoria / Federal Court of Australia
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Irreführendes Verhalten sowie falsche oder irreführende Angaben (Vorschriften in der Mitteilung nicht genannt)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- intentional
- Mitigating circumstances
- The company admitted the conduct and cooperated with the regulator in the court proceedings; it has not operated the agency since 2025.
- Published
- 24 Apr 2026
Original amount 600,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Apr 2026.
- Consumer Affairs Victoria: Company to pay $600,000 for underquoting (24.04.2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Jan 2026 Jim's Realty Pty Ltd (früher Agape Property Group)WA: record 225,000 AUD fine for estate agency over trust account and bond breaches €132,345
On 30 January 2026 the Perth Magistrates Court convicted Jim's Realty Pty Ltd on 35 charges – client money not credited to the trust account, unlawful withdrawals, improper records and tenancy bonds lodged late or not at all – and fined it 225,000 AUD plus 577.50 AUD in costs. A forensic audit commissioned by Consumer Protection WA (the consumer protection division of Western Australia) had identified 57 unexplained withdrawals totalling more than 334,915 AUD. According to the regulator it is the largest fine ever imposed on an estate agency in Western Australia; the company has been in liquidation since 2024.
Trust money and tenancy bonds require complete records and timely lodgement; irregularities in the annual audit are a warning sign that must be resolved immediately.
Handling client money in trust accounts and timely lodgement of tenancy bonds
- Authority / court
- Consumer Protection WA (Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety) / Perth Magistrates Court
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail
- Legal basis
- Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA); Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- yes
- Mitigating circumstances
- None; according to the release, the court found no mitigating factors despite the liquidation.
- Published
- 11 Feb 2026
Original amount 225,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Jan 2026.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Nov 2025 Atom Motorss Pty LtdNSW: car dealer Atom Motorss loses licence over false security interest information Other
NSW Fair Trading (the consumer protection regulator of New South Wales) cancelled the motor dealer licence of Atom Motorss Pty Ltd on 17 November 2025 and disqualified the company for five years. Measures against individuals are not set out here. According to the release, the company had traded as a motor dealer without a licence and, when selling vehicles to consumers, had given false information from the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR, the register of security interests in personal property) in the prescribed dealer forms.
Information on encumbrances on a vehicle must come from a current register search; false statements in dealer forms can cost the business its licence.
Accurate information on encumbrances and security interests when selling used cars
- Authority / court
- NSW Fair Trading
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (NSW), s 45(1)(f) und (g); zugrunde liegende Verstöße gegen den Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 und das Australian Consumer Law
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Automotive
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 12 Mar 2026
- NSW Fair Trading: Disziplinarmaßnahme gegen Atom Motorss Pty Ltd (Mitteilung vom 12.03.2026) Press release of an authority
- Verify NSW (amtliches Lizenzregister), Motor Dealer's Licence MD095631, Atom Motorss Pty Ltd – Lizenzentzug und Sperre vom 17.11.2025 (JSON) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Feb 2025 Allianz Australia Insurance Limited; AWP Australia Pty LtdAllianz and AWP: criminal fines of AUD 16.8m over misleading travel insurance information €10m
Between 2016 and 2018 Allianz Australia and AWP, the company marketing and administering travel insurance on Allianz’s behalf, published online information on travel insurance that stated maximum benefits without adequately pointing out sub-limits, conditions and exclusions. The Court convicted Allianz on six counts at AUD 2.25 million each (AUD 13.5 million) and AWP on one count at AUD 3.3 million, in each case after a 25% discount for early guilty pleas. 781 customers had previously received compensation totalling AUD 1,264,864.
Saving on the legal review of web content can cost many times more in fines and compensation; product advertising needs a mandatory sign-off.
Legal review of product information and advertising pages before publication
- Authority / court
- Supreme Court of New South Wales (Anklage des Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions nach Ermittlungen der ASIC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- ss 1041E(1), 1311(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- negligent
- Repeat case
- yes
- Mitigating circumstances
- Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity, voluntary disclosure, full cooperation with the investigating authorities and compensation of affected customers.
- Liability of senior managers
- In 2016 a General Manager declined an external legal review of the website estimated at AUD 25,000 to 30,000; the Court saw the cause of the offences in an unwillingness to spend money on adequate oversight.
- Published
- 28 Feb 2025
Original amount 16,800,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Feb 2025.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link