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.

27cases from 1 jurisdiction
€79.7mTotal of monetary amounts (16 cases with an amount)
€17.4mLargest single case: E.ON Next
€2.51mMedian per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

Where?

by authority
  1. Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) €37.9m 48 % · 3 cases
  2. Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) €31m 39 % · 11 cases
  3. Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) €7.24m 9 % · 8 cases
  4. Gambling Commission €3.32m 4 % · 2 cases
  5. Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) für die Gas and Electricity Markets Authority €251,766 0 % · 1 case
  6. High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts (Klägerin: Competition and Markets Authority) – 0 % · 1 case
  7. UK Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) – 0 % · 1 case

What for?

by topic
  1. no topic €73m 92 % · 16 cases
  2. Misleading advertising and pricing €5.86m 7 % · 8 cases
  3. Information duties in online retail €832,534 1 % · 1 case
  4. Fake reviews – 0 % · 2 cases

Who?

by sector

All sectors

  1. Energy and utilities €38.2m 48 % · 4 cases
  2. Financial services and insurance €31m 39 % · 11 cases
  3. Other €8.15m 10 % · 3 cases
  4. Media and online platforms €1.03m 1 % · 3 cases
  5. Retail and e-commerce €832,534 1 % · 4 cases
  6. Transport, logistics and shipping €541,128 1 % · 2 cases

When?

per year, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
20221€2.75m
20234–
20248€54.1m
20256€3.07m
20268€19.8m

27 cases

27 Jul 2026 Equity for Growth (Securities) Limited (in liquidation)FCA: Public censure for Equity for Growth (Securities) over misleading minibond promotions United KingdomMisleading advertising and pricing Reprimand or warning

The FCA publicly censured the corporate finance firm Equity for Growth (Securities) Limited. The FCA found that between January 2018 and August 2019 the firm approved seven information memoranda for four unregulated minibond issuers as financial promotions. In the FCA's view, these documents omitted key information, such as the level and range of commissions, so investors could not properly assess the risk. Because the firm was wound up by the court in March 2026 on the FCA's petition, no fine was imposed; the FCA stated that it would otherwise have been £386,467 (including disgorgement).

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
COBS 4.2.1(1)R; section 205 FSMA 2000 (Public Censure)
Action
Reprimand or warning
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

Report an error

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

30 Jun 2026 Petfre (Gibraltar) LimitedPetfre (Gibraltar): £900,000 over inadequate customer interaction in online gambling United KingdomConsumer protection and online retail €1.04m

Following a compliance assessment in May and June 2024, the operator of betfred.com will pay £900,000 in lieu of a financial penalty to the Consolidated Fund (the UK Government's general account) under a settlement and contribute to the Commission's investigation costs. The Commission found breaches of the remote customer interaction requirements under SRCP 3.4.3: automated processes to identify signs of harm and to act immediately on strong indicators were lacking, so that one customer lost a further £17,900 within 24 hours of a review without being contacted again. The Commission had already announced sanctions against Petfre in 2022 and 2025.

What organisations can take from it

After a sanction, customer interaction must be improved lastingly and demonstrably, or the next case follows.

Relevance to training and awareness

Lasting improvement of customer interaction after earlier sanctions

Authority / court
Gambling Commission
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
s. 116 Gambling Act 2005; SRCP 3.4.3 Abs. 1, 2, 4, 7 und 11 der Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Other
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
A swift action plan with progress updates and full cooperation with the investigation.
Published
30 Jun 2026

Original amount 900,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

23 Jun 2026 TICKETBIS S.L. (StubHub UK)StubHub UK: 889,200 GBP penalty over mandatory fees added later United KingdomMisleading advertising and pricing €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.

What organisations can take from it

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.

Sources

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

Report an error

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

15 Jun 2026 Marks Electrical LimitedCMA: GBP 720,000 fine for Marks Electrical over pre-selected extra services United KingdomInformation duties in online retail €832,534

Using its new powers under the DMCCA 2024, the CMA found that the electrical retailer had pre-selected and charged customers on its website for paid extra services (removal of the old appliance, packaging disposal) without their express consent during the period examined, April to November 2025. It imposed a fine of GBP 720,000 (GBP 1,200,000 before a 40% settlement discount) and required the company to refund the amounts charged in this way to affected customers (around GBP 600,000 according to the CMA).

What organisations can take from it

Paid add-ons must never be pre-selected in an online shop – since the DMCCA, the CMA can impose fines and order refunds itself.

Relevance to training and awareness

Pre-selected extra charges in online shops

Authority / court
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
Legal basis
Regulation 40 Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013; Chapter 4 Part 3 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Mitigating circumstances
40% discount for admission and settlement (including waiver of appeal); the practice was stopped on the day the investigation was opened.
Published
18 Jun 2026

Original amount 720,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

3 Jun 2026 OVO Energy LimitedOfgem: OVO pays GBP 10.4m over poor support for vulnerable prepayment customers United KingdomConsumer protection and online retail €12m

Ofgem found that OVO Energy did not adequately monitor prepayment customers in vulnerable situations, did not properly support customers who self-disconnected and did not maintain the Priority Services Register properly; some internal training materials were unclear and contradictory. By way of alternative action, OVO is paying GBP 7m into the voluntary redress fund and providing GBP 3.4m in credit and debt relief to its most vulnerable customers; under a separate compliance engagement it is also paying GBP 1.1m to customers in the Scottish Highlands and Islands.

What organisations can take from it

Policies on paper are not enough: training materials and processes for vulnerable customers must be consistent and checked in practice.

Relevance to training and awareness

Dealing with customers in vulnerable situations

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
Standard Licence Conditions 26.1, 26.4, 26.5(d)(f), 27A.1, 28.1A/28.1B, 28.2 und 28.4 der Gas- und Stromversorgungslizenzen
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Energy and utilities
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial action during the investigation, including welfare visits to customers who had been disconnected for more than 72 hours.
Published
3 Jun 2026

Original amount 10,400,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

22 May 2026 Emma Matratzen GmbH, Emma Sleep UK Limited, Emma Sleep GmbHHigh Court: Emma Sleep agrees to end pressure-selling tactics after CMA claim United KingdomMisleading advertising and pricing Order

On a claim brought by the CMA, the High Court made a consent order in which the Emma companies accepted that they had used misleading countdown timers, inaccurate high-demand messages and misleading discount claims. They gave undertakings to the court that are enforceable and must put compliance measures in place with reporting to the CMA; the dispute over was/now reference pricing was tried separately, and in its judgment of 30 July 2026 the court found only the admitted infringements.

What organisations can take from it

Artificial time pressure and apparent scarcity in an online shop are an enforcement risk, up to contempt sanctions, even for foreign sellers with UK customers.

Relevance to training and awareness

Misleading urgency and discount claims in online retail

Authority / court
High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts (Klägerin: Competition and Markets Authority)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
section 217 Enterprise Act 2002 (Enforcement order wegen Schedule 13 Infringements)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Published
28 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

15 Apr 2026 Automobile Association Developments Limited (AA Driving School, BSM Driving School)AA and BSM driving schools: 4.2 million GBP for drip pricing – CMA's first consumer fine United KingdomMisleading advertising and pricing €4.83m

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. According to the annual accounts filed with the UK companies register for financial year 2026, the company had around 6,776 employees.

What organisations can take from it

Mandatory fees must be included from the very first price – in the United Kingdom, the CMA has been able to impose fines for this itself since 2025.

Relevance to training and awareness

Price disclosures and mandatory fees at online checkout

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
Employees
1,000 to 9,999
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 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

Report an error

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

20 Mar 2026 Conclusive Financial Limited (auch „PCP Refunds“)FCA orders Conclusive to remove misleading adverts for motor finance claims United KingdomMisleading advertising and pricing Order

The FCA directed the claims management company Conclusive Financial Limited, which also trades as “PCP Refunds”, with immediate effect to remove adverts for motor finance compensation claims and to refrain from similar adverts in future. The adverts used, without permission, edited video clips of the founder of a well-known consumer finance website as well as the FCA logo, presented the firm's authorised status as a mark of quality, cited an unsubstantiated average refund of 1,846 GBP and did not adequately explain the fees charged for its “No Win, No Fee” service.

What organisations can take from it

Financial promotions must not borrow trust from celebrities or regulators' logos, nor promise unsubstantiated average amounts.

Relevance to training and awareness

Compliant advertising on social media; no use of celebrities or regulators' logos

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
s. 137S FSMA 2000; CMCOB 3.2.1R, 3.2.7R und 3.2.9R
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Published
14 Apr 2026

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

17 Dec 2025 PPB Entertainment Limited, PPB Counterparty Services Limited, Betfair Casino Limited u. a. (4 Lizenznehmer, Paddy Power Betfair)Paddy Power Betfair: £2m for identifying at-risk players too late United KingdomConsumer protection and online retail €2.28m

Four online licensees trading as Paddy Power and Betfair (PPB Entertainment Limited, PPB Counterparty Services Limited, Betfair Casino Limited, TSE Malta LP) will pay a total of £2,000,000 in lieu of a financial penalty under a settlement and contribute to the Commission's investigation costs. An assessment in April and May 2024 found that their customer interaction systems identified signs of harm such as rapidly rising deposits or very long gambling sessions too late; one customer, for example, staked £86,000 within 16 days without a manual account review. The company had already been penalised in 2023 for marketing to vulnerable customers.

What organisations can take from it

Automated triggers alone are not enough: where there are clear signs of harm, a person must intervene promptly.

Relevance to training and awareness

Manual review where there are clear signs of harm rather than relying solely on automation

Authority / court
Gambling Commission
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
s. 116 Gambling Act 2005; SRCP 3.4.3 Abs. 1, 4, 7, 8 und 11 der Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Other
Repeat case
yes
Mitigating circumstances
Full cooperation, early acceptance of the failings and swift implementation of an action plan.
Published
17 Dec 2025

Original amount 2,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

10 Dec 2025 Euro Car Parks LimitedCMA: GBP 473,000 fine for Euro Car Parks for ignoring an information notice United KingdomConsumer protection and online retail €541,128

Euro Car Parks left a formal CMA information notice served in July 2025 unanswered for around three months despite repeated attempts at contact, later saying it had blocked the authority's emails as suspected fraud. The CMA did not accept this as a reasonable excuse and, in its first penalty under the new DMCCA powers, imposed a fixed penalty of GBP 473,000; the company has appealed to the High Court, and no breach of consumer law has been found. The decision is not final.

What organisations can take from it

Information requests from authorities must reliably reach the right people and be answered on time – suspecting spam or fraud is no excuse.

Relevance to training and awareness

Handling information requests from authorities

Authority / court
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
Schedule 5 paragraph 16C(2) Consumer Rights Act 2015 (geändert durch den Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024)
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Transport, logistics and shipping
Published
13 Feb 2026

Original amount 473,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

25 Sep 2025 TicketmasterTicketmaster commits to price transparency following Oasis presale United KingdomMisleading advertising and pricing 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.

What organisations can take from it

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

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

Report an error

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

16 Jun 2025 Farringdon Energy Limited (Handelsname Champion Energy)Ofgem: GBP 214,580 fine for Farringdon Energy over direct debits without supply United KingdomConsumer protection and online retail €251,766

Ofgem found that the business electricity supplier lacked robust, documented processes – they relied on the knowledge of a single employee – and therefore collected direct debits from customers it was not, or no longer, supplying; 25 customers suffered a detriment of around GBP 175,000. Following a provisional order in May 2024, the authority confirmed a penalty of GBP 223,676, from which it deducted GBP 9,096 in goodwill payments already made, leaving GBP 214,580 to pay.

What organisations can take from it

Even micro-businesses need documented processes – knowledge held by only one employee is not compliance.

Relevance to training and awareness

Documented processes instead of knowledge held by one person

Authority / court
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) für die Gas and Electricity Markets Authority
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
Standard Licence Condition 4A.1 der Stromversorgungslizenz; section 27A Electricity Act 1989
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Energy and utilities
Employees
Under 50
Mitigating circumstances
Remedial action after the provisional order; goodwill payments of GBP 9,096 already made were credited.
Published
19 Jun 2025

Original amount 214,580 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jun 2025.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

6 Jun 2025 AmazonAmazon commits to the CMA to tougher action against fake reviews United KingdomFake reviews Order

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.

What organisations can take from it

Anyone who publishes reviews must maintain active processes against fakes and the transfer of reviews.

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
Sources

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

Report an error

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

24 Jan 2025 GoogleGoogle commits to the CMA to tougher action against fake reviews United KingdomFake 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.

What organisations can take from it

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

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

Report an error

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

20 Nov 2024 E.ON NextOfgem: E.ON Next pays GBP 14.5m over missing final bills for prepayment customers United KingdomConsumer protection and online retail €17.4m

Because of a billing system error, former prepayment customers of E.ON Next did not receive final bills on time between February 2021 and September 2023; more than 248,000 customer accounts were affected, credit balances were not refunded and mandatory compensation was not paid. After self-reporting, the company paid GBP 14.5m in total (4.7m in credit refunds, 6.6m in compensation under the Guaranteed Standards of Performance and 3.2m in additional redress) and also wrote off the debts of almost 150,000 former customers.

What organisations can take from it

Billing errors for departing customers quickly add up to millions – final bills and credit refunds need automated controls.

Relevance to training and awareness

Billing and refund duties towards vulnerable customers

Authority / court
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
Standard Licence Condition 27.17 der Gas- und Stromversorgungslizenzen; Guaranteed Standards of Performance Regulations
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Energy and utilities
Mitigating circumstances
Self-reporting, commendable engagement in the compliance process and the company's past performance were taken into account in setting the redress; the billing systems were corrected.
Published
20 Nov 2024

Original amount 14,500,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Nov 2024.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

13 Nov 2024 Opus Energy LimitedOfgem: Opus Energy pays GBP 7.08m after overcharging business customers United KingdomConsumer protection and online retail €8.48m

Opus Energy self-reported that two faults in its billing system had led to overcharging on 87,825 business customer accounts between 2003 and 2023, for example through wrong tariffs or duplicated billing periods. Ofgem found breaches of the licence conditions on fair treatment, operational capability and billing based on meter readings; Opus is paying a package of GBP 7,077,077 in total, made up of GBP 3,914,531 in refunds, GBP 1,597,058 in inflation uplift, GBP 1,304,555 in goodwill payments and GBP 260,933 to the energy industry voluntary redress fund.

What organisations can take from it

Billing systems need regular audits – small individual errors grow into millions over the years.

Relevance to training and awareness

Billing accuracy and control of IT systems

Authority / court
Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
Standard Licence Conditions 0A, 4A und 21B der Gas- und Stromversorgungslizenzen
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Energy and utilities
Mitigating circumstances
Self-reporting, full cooperation and swift remediation; according to Ofgem the package would otherwise have been higher.
Published
13 Nov 2024

Original amount 7,077,077 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Nov 2024.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

21 Oct 2024 Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) LimitedFCA: £5.4m fine for Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) over treatment of customers in financial difficulty United KingdomConsumer protection and online retail €6.48m

The FCA fined the motor finance provider Volkswagen Financial Services (UK) Limited £5,397,600. The FCA found that between January 2017 and July 2023 the company did not treat customers in financial difficulty fairly, did not adequately consider their individual circumstances and in some cases repossessed cars that customers relied on for work; complaints were also not properly identified. At least 109,589 customers suffered or were at risk of detriment. The fine includes a 30% discount.

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
FCA Principles 3, 6 und 7; CONC 7.2.1R, 7.3.4R, 7.3.9R, 7.3.14R(1); DISP 1.3.1R; section 206 FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 5,397,600 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Oct 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

Report an error

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

9 Oct 2024 a UK retail bankFCA: £10.9m fine for UK retail bank over treatment of customers in arrears United KingdomConsumer protection and online retailanonymised €13m

The FCA fined a UK retail bank £10,910,500. The FCA found that between June 2014 and March 2020 the bank treated some retail customers in arrears or financial difficulty on mortgages, loans, credit cards or overdrafts unfairly, including potentially vulnerable customers. 232,849 customers suffered or were at risk of loss; the company paid around £99.9 million in redress. This case is separate from the fine against the company over its 2018 IT migration. The fine includes a 30% discount.

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
FCA Principles 3 und 6; section 206 FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 10,910,500 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Oct 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Company name anonymised since 9 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

9 Aug 2024 a Cypriot CFD providerFCA: £276,100 fine for Cypriot CFD provider over unfair treatment of CFD customers United KingdomConsumer protection and online retailanonymised €322,140

The FCA fined a Cypriot CFD provider £276,100. The FCA found that between January and April 2021 the firm's account managers pushed often inexperienced UK retail customers into trading risky leveraged contracts for difference and gave investment advice without permission to do so. According to the FCA, UK customers lost around £4.4 million in that period. The fine was significantly reduced because of proven serious financial hardship; £1,736,000 had originally been proposed.

Authority / court
Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail
Legal basis
FCA Principle 6; section 20(1) FSMA 2000; section 206 FSMA 2000
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Financial services and insurance

Original amount 276,100 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Aug 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 9 Aug 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

15 Jul 2024 a UK online voucher platformCMA: voucher platform changes countdown marketing and refunds over GBP 4m United KingdomMisleading advertising and pricinganonymised Other

Following CMA concerns about countdown timers, scarcity and popularity claims and sign-ups to a paid VIP membership via pre-ticked boxes, the platform's companies gave formal undertakings. They now use only accurate urgency and scarcity claims, no longer use pre-ticked boxes for VIP membership and are refunding the fees – according to the CMA, more than GBP 4m in total to more than 870,000 customers as credit with the option to convert to cash.

What organisations can take from it

Countdown timers and scarcity claims must reflect reality, and paid memberships require active consent.

Relevance to training and awareness

Artificial urgency and pre-ticked boxes in online retail

Authority / court
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)
Area of law
Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
Legal basis
Part 8 Enterprise Act 2002 (Undertakings gegenüber der CMA); Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008; Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013
Action
Other
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Published
19 Jul 2024
Sources

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 15 Jul 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

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

Load 7 more of 7

Ready for training that actually lands?

Try the combination for free: automated administration for you, learning formats that fit your team, with no minimum or credit card.

Start 14-day free trial