Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa: 2,207 cases from 44 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by authority- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA) €22.7m 100 % · 17 cases
What for?
by topicWho?
by sectorAll sectors
- Energy and utilities €9.71m 43 % · 1 case
- Automotive €7.63m 34 % · 1 case
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals €4.18m 18 % · 2 cases
- Telecoms, IT and software €1.2m 5 % · 2 cases
- Retail and e-commerce €11,506 0 % · 3 cases
- Other – 0 % · 4 cases
- Construction and real estate – 0 % · 1 case
- Healthcare – 0 % · 1 case
- Food and agriculture – 0 % · 1 case
- Media and online platforms – 0 % · 1 case
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | €11,506 |
| 2023 | 2 | €4.18m |
| 2024 | 6 | €17.6m |
| 2025 | 4 | – |
| 2026 | 4 | €941,067 |
17 cases
18 Sep 2026 Kinpodo Co., Ltd. (株式会社金宝堂)Kinpodo: order over a bait price 'from 104,500 JPY' for family funerals Order
From March to May 2025, Kinpodo advertised family funerals in exclusively rented halls under the name 'Chiisana Mori no Ie' in television commercials at a price 'from 104,500 JPY'. In fact, apart from a few cases, customers had to pay at least 308,000 JPY; the order required a corrective notice, measures to prevent recurrence and cessation.
A 'from' price may only be advertised if customers can realistically obtain it.
'From' prices and bait offers
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 18 Sep 2026
- 株式会社金宝堂に対する景品表示法に基づく措置命令について (Eintrag, 18.09.2026) Press release of an authority
- News Release 18.09.2026 mit Maßnahmenanordnung 消表対第807号 (PDF) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Aug 2026 Snow Corporation; SNOW Japan Co., Ltd. (SNOW Japan株式会社)Snow Corporation and SNOW Japan: orders over undisclosed paid posts on X Order
SNOW Japan, to which South Korea's Snow Corporation had left decisions on advertising content in Japan for the jointly offered service, had users of X publish posts about the AI image functions of the 'SNOW' app from April 2025 onwards, for payment and following its instructions, without making the commission recognisable; the posts were treated as advertising by both companies. On 6 August 2026 each of them received an order to stop the display of posts still online, inform consumers and take measures to prevent recurrence.
A foreign provider that leaves its advertising in Japan to a partner remains responsible for undisclosed paid posts.
Stealth marketing and disclosure of paid posts
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 3 (Bekanntmachung zu Stealth-Marketing) Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 6 Aug 2026
- 「SNOW」と称するアプリケーションの利用サービスの提供事業者2社に対する景品表示法に基づく措置命令について (Eintrag, 06.08.2026) Press release of an authority
- News Release 06.08.2026 mit Maßnahmenanordnungen 消表対第681号 und 第682号 (PDF) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
11 Jun 2026 GEO Store Co., Ltd. (株式会社ゲオストア)GEO Store: order over a sham deadline in a smartphone buy-back promotion Order
GEO Store advertised, among other channels on the official GEO account on X, for example from 12 May to 8 June 2025, a 10% bonus on buy-back prices for used smartphones and tablets that was said to apply only until a certain date. In fact, the same or higher bonuses were available afterwards; the investigation was conducted jointly with the Chubu office of the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC, 公正取引委員会).
Time-limited promotions must actually end – a deadline after which the offer continues unchanged creates artificial time pressure.
Time-limited offers and artificial urgency
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 11 Jun 2026
- 株式会社ゲオストアに対する景品表示法に基づく措置命令について (Eintrag, 11.06.2026) Press release of an authority
- News Release 11.06.2026 mit Maßnahmenanordnung 消表対第484号 (PDF) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
12 Mar 2026 Excom Global Co., Ltd. (エクスコムグローバル株式会社)Excom Global ('Imoto no WiFi'): surcharge over unsubstantiated 'No. 1' claims €941,067
From February 2020 to May 2024, Excom Global advertised its rental of mobile Wi-Fi routers for travel abroad ('Imoto no WiFi') in travel-guide adverts and on its own websites as number one for customer satisfaction, for being chosen by overseas travellers and for customer service. The commissioned survey, without checking actual use, merely asked for impressions of the websites of the company and nine arbitrarily selected competitors and was also not reproduced accurately; a surcharge of 172,620,000 JPY was imposed.
Anyone advertising survey wins must know and check the methodology – responsibility stays with the advertiser, not the survey provider.
'No. 1' claims and rankings
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Telecoms, IT and software
- Culpability
- negligent
- Published
- 12 Mar 2026
Original amount 172,620,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Mar 2026.
- エクスコムグローバル株式会社に対する景品表示法に基づく課徴金納付命令について (Eintrag, 12.03.2026) Press release of an authority
- News Release 12.03.2026 mit Surcharge-Bescheid 消表対第181号 (PDF) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
23 Dec 2025 Chiba Lotte Marines Co., Ltd. (株式会社千葉ロッテマリーンズ)Chiba Lotte Marines: commitment plan with partial refund after signed-ball promotion Other
In a promotional letter of January 2025 for its paid fan club 'TEAM26', the baseball club Chiba Lotte Marines gave the impression that every new member would definitely receive a ball hand-signed by a player at the booth by the stadium, although only some members received one. Instead of an order, a commitment plan was approved on 23 December 2025 – a board resolution, information for consumers, measures to prevent recurrence, allegedly a partial refund of annual fees and reports on implementation; no infringement was thereby established.
Free gifts must state clearly whether every customer or only some will receive them; a commitment plan with refunds can avoid a formal order.
Advertising free gifts and special offers correctly
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 30, Art. 31 Abs. 1 und 3 (Zusagenverfahren), Verdacht eines Verstoßes gegen Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 23 Dec 2025
- 株式会社千葉ロッテマリーンズから申請があった確約計画の認定について (Eintrag, 23.12.2025) Press release of an authority
- News Release 23.12.2025 zur Genehmigung des Zusagenplans (PDF) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Oct 2025 NOVA Language Company Co., Ltd. (株式会社NOVAランゲージカンパニー)NOVA: order over waiving an enrolment fee that was never charged Order
On the website of its 'NOVA' English schools, NOVA Language Company advertised several courses, for example in September 2024, by waiving an enrolment fee of 22,000 JPY (11,000 JPY for a children's course). The company had not charged anyone such a fee over a considerable recent period; the order required a corrective notice, measures to prevent recurrence and cessation.
A waived charge is only an advantage if it is otherwise actually charged – fictitious fees are misleading price advertising.
Advertising price advantages and fee waivers correctly
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 17 Oct 2025
- 株式会社NOVAランゲージカンパニーに対する景品表示法に基づく措置命令について (Eintrag, 17.10.2025) Press release of an authority
- News Release 17.10.2025 mit Maßnahmenanordnung 消表対第1556号 (PDF) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
12 Sep 2025 Japanet Takata Co., Ltd. (株式会社ジャパネットたかた)Japanet Takata: order over comparison with a future 'regular price' for osechi Order
From 8 October to 23 November 2024, Japanet Takata offered a two-tier New Year food box ('osechi' for 2025) in its online shop, stating that the 'Japanet regular price' of 29,980 JPY had been reduced by 10,000 JPY to 19,980 JPY, with the regular price presented as applying after the promotion ended. There was no reliable plan to sell at the higher price afterwards; the investigation was conducted jointly with the Kyushu office of the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC, 公正取引委員会).
Anyone advertising against a future price needs a robust sales plan at that price that is actually carried out.
Reference prices and discount promotions
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 12 Sep 2025
- 株式会社ジャパネットたかたに対する景品表示法に基づく措置命令について (Eintrag, 12.09.2025) Press release of an authority
- News Release 12.09.2025 mit Maßnahmenanordnung 消表対第1401号 (PDF) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
1 Aug 2025 P&G Japan G.K. (P&Gジャパン合同会社)P&G Japan: order over unsubstantiated anti-mould claims for a Febreze product Order
P&G Japan advertised its 'Febreze bathroom anti-mould' product (ファブリーズ お風呂用防カビ剤), among other things on the packaging from April 2022 to May 2023, by claiming that simply placing it in the bathroom would prevent black mould for around six weeks. The documents submitted did not substantiate this effect, so the advertising was deemed misleading; the order required a corrective notice, measures to prevent recurrence and cessation.
Anyone promising an effect must hold robust evidence before advertising; without it, the claim is deemed misleading.
Substantiating efficacy claims in advertising
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 und 2 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Published
- 1 Aug 2025
- P&Gジャパン合同会社に対する景品表示法に基づく措置命令について (Eintrag, 01.08.2025) Press release of an authority
- News Release 01.08.2025 mit Maßnahmenanordnung 消表対第1255号 (PDF) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Aug 2024 a Japanese fitness companyJapanese fitness company: orders over '24-hour' claims and undisclosed influencer posts Order
The company advertised its gym chain by claiming that add-on services such as self-service teeth whitening, self-service hair removal, massage chairs and workspaces could be used around the clock at no extra cost, although they were only available for a limited number of hours a day (for example five hours for teeth whitening). In addition, the company republished Instagram posts written by third parties for payment as 'customer reviews' on its own website without disclosing that it had commissioned them; both practices were prohibited by two orders on 8 August 2024.
Paid influencer content remains advertising and must be recognisable as such – even when the company later reuses it itself.
Labelling influencer marketing and checking service promises
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 und Nr. 3 (Bekanntmachung zu Stealth-Marketing) Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 9 Aug 2024
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 8 Aug 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
2 Aug 2024 a Japanese computer manufacturerComputer maker: surcharge for fictitious reference prices in its online shop €261,697
In its own online shop, the manufacturer set a 'WEB price', at which the devices had never been sold there, against a reduced 'campaign price' for seven notebook models, and announced deadlines after which the discounts still applied (example from October 2022: 187,880 JPY reduced to 148,425 JPY, 21% off). A surcharge of 42,230,000 JPY was imposed for this.
Strikethrough prices must be prices actually charged, and promotional deadlines must be honoured – otherwise both are misleading price claims.
Strikethrough prices and countdown discounts
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Telecoms, IT and software
- Culpability
- negligent
- Published
- 2 Aug 2024
Original amount 42,230,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Aug 2024.
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 2 Aug 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Jun 2024 a Japanese medical corporationClinic operator: order over discounts in exchange for five-star Google Maps reviews Order
The medical corporation promised people attending an internal medicine clinic it operates for a flu vaccination a reduction in the vaccination fee if they rated the clinic with five or four stars on Google Maps. Consumers could not recognise the resulting reviews as advertising prompted by the provider; the order required it to stop displaying them, inform consumers and take preventive measures that also cover the medical staff.
Reviews obtained in exchange for discounts or other benefits are the provider's own advertising and must not appear as independent customer opinions.
Stealth marketing and incentivised reviews
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 3 (Bekanntmachung zu Stealth-Marketing) Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Healthcare
- Published
- 7 Jun 2024
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 6 Jun 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 May 2024 a Japanese electricity utilityJapanese utility: surcharge for misleading claims of cheaper electricity tariffs €9.71m
From April 2022 to January 2023, the utility claimed on its website and in a brochure that two household tariffs of one of its tariff plans were cheaper than its standard tariff for households using up to, or more than, 400 kWh a month respectively. Because the fuel-cost adjustment in these tariffs turned out higher, this was not true in some cases; following a joint investigation with a regional office of the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC, 公正取引委員会), a surcharge of 1,655,940,000 JPY was imposed (1,086,170,000 JPY for one tariff, 569,770,000 JPY for the other).
Tariff comparisons must also take variable price components such as fuel-cost adjustments into account; otherwise 'cheaper' becomes a misleading price claim.
Price and tariff comparisons in advertising
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Culpability
- negligent
- Published
- 28 May 2024
Original amount 1,655,940,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 May 2024.
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 28 May 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
12 Mar 2024 a Japanese car importerJapanese car importer: surcharge over false standard-equipment claims €7.63m
In 2020 and 2021, the importer listed features as standard in printed and online data sheets and catalogues for three model variants from two model ranges and for an equipment package which were missing or – like certain driver-assistance functions – only worked with a separately ordered navigation package. Two surcharge orders issued on the same day (599,120,000 JPY for the models of one range, 631,850,000 JPY for the models of the other range) total 1,230,970,000 JPY.
Equipment details in catalogues and data sheets are advertising claims and must be checked against the actual standard equipment before publication; a timely self-report can halve the amount.
Accurate product information in catalogues and data sheets
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1, Art. 9 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Automotive
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- For the equipment package on a model of the second range, the amount was halved under Art. 9 because the company had reported the facts itself; a report concerning a model of the first range was not recognised as such a report.
- Published
- 12 Mar 2024
Original amount 1,230,970,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Mar 2024.
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 12 Mar 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
29 Feb 2024 a Japanese homebuilding group and four group companiesHomebuilding group and four homebuilders: orders over 'No. 1' claims without objective survey Order
The holding company of a homebuilding group and four group companies advertised custom-built homes in 2022 and 2023 on websites, in social media posts and in flyers as 'No. 1' in three categories, such as the range of building plots on offer and 'high quality at low cost'. The underlying survey only asked for impressions of selected providers' websites and did not check whether respondents knew the services; on 29 February 2024 a cease-and-desist order was issued against each of the five companies.
Ranking and 'No. 1' claims require an objective survey of actual customers; a website impression test run by a service provider is not sufficient.
'No. 1' claims and rankings
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Published
- 1 Mar 2024
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 28 Feb 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
27 Jun 2023 a Japanese pizza chainPizza chain: order over an undisclosed service fee in leaflets Order
The pizza chain advertised collection and delivery prices for 953 outlets in leaflets (handed out in store, posted through letterboxes or inserted in newspapers). In fact, between October 2022 and April 2023 – except for telephone or in-store orders during certain periods – a 'service fee' of 4 to 7 per cent of the price, capped at 299 JPY, was added; the order required a corrective notice to consumers, measures to prevent recurrence and cessation.
Mandatory surcharges belong in every price statement – a price to which a fee is added at the end is not a final price.
Price statements and hidden extra charges (drip pricing)
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 27 Jun 2023
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 27 Jun 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
11 Apr 2023 a Japanese pharmaceutical manufacturerDrug maker: surcharge for unsubstantiated virus-removal claims for chlorine dioxide products €4.18m
From September 2018 to April 2022, the pharmaceutical manufacturer claimed on packaging, its own website, on television and in adverts on a video platform that products of its brand (room dispensers, clip-on sticks, sprays) remove airborne viruses and bacteria from indoor air by means of chlorine dioxide. The documents submitted did not substantiate this effect and the disclaimers on the packaging did not change the overall impression; the surcharge of 607,440,000 JPY is made up of individual amounts for five product groups, including 452,200,000 JPY for the room dispensers.
Hygiene claims need evidence for the advertised conditions of use; a reference to tests in a closed space does not rescue a sweeping advertising claim.
Substantiating efficacy and health claims in advertising
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 8 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
- Culpability
- negligent
- Published
- 11 Apr 2023
Original amount 607,440,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Apr 2023.
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 11 Apr 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Sep 2022 a Japanese TV shopping companyTV shopping company: surcharge for unsubstantiated slimming claims in TV shopping €11,506
On 17 March 2019, the TV shopping company promoted a beauty roller using radio-frequency heat and EMS muscle stimulation in a TV shopping programme on BS satellite television, claiming that ten minutes of daily use over three to four weeks would slim the treated body area, such as the waistline. The documents the company submitted did not substantiate this effect, so the advertising was deemed misleading; a surcharge (turnover-based monetary payment) of 1,640,000 JPY was imposed.
Anyone broadcasting efficacy promises for beauty or fitness devices needs robust evidence in advance; small print such as 'results may vary' does not cancel out the overall impression.
Substantiating efficacy claims in advertising
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 8 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Culpability
- negligent
- Published
- 16 Sep 2022
Original amount 1,640,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Sep 2022.
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2022) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 16 Sep 2024 · Direct link