Who was sanctioned, and for what?

The company behind The TV Shop had its own staff post positive product reviews without disclosing the connection, and published one- to three-star reviews only if customers responded to a follow-up email. It also gave customers the impression that they had no rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act beyond a 30-day money-back guarantee, and advertised an accessory pack for the Air Roaster Pro as “free” although it was always included. After a guilty verdict on 13 charges, the District Court imposed 1,104,000 NZD on 6 August 2026; the company had already been fined in 2015 (153,000 NZD) and 2022 (123,500 NZD).

Authority / court

District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 10, 13(e), 13(i), 40(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

yes

Liability of senior managers

According to the sentencing decision, managers and executives knew about the review practices and at times directed them themselves.

Published

11 Aug 2026

Original amount 1,104,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Aug 2026.

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

New Zealand's largest gym chain kept advertising a membership at 6.99 NZD a week on its website, Instagram and Google ads, although all new members had to pay a compulsory 3% surcharge that it presented as a “transaction fee” but which in fact served to raise revenue generally. After pleading guilty to eight representative charges (offending period 21 December 2023 to 30 April 2025), the company was sentenced on 5 June 2026 to a fine of 1,120,000 NZD. According to the Commerce Commission (ComCom, New Zealand's competition and consumer authority), the surcharge affected more than 125,000 members and generated around 1.6 million NZD in additional revenue.

Authority / court

Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 11, 40(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

According to the court, the labels “transaction fee” and “Payment Authority Fee” were approved at the highest level; the fee increase was decided by senior executives.

Published

9 Jun 2026

Original amount 1,120,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 5 Jun 2026.

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

The bank lacked adequate systems to give borrowers and, in some cases, guarantors the legally required information about their loans, and in some cases did not apply agreed interest rate discounts on home loans; up to 11,398 borrowers and up to 3,012 guarantors were affected. Following a settlement with the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's competition, consumer and credit regulator), the High Court declared breaches of the responsible lending principles (s 9C CCCFA) and imposed an allegedly agreed civil pecuniary penalty of 3.64 million NZD, according to the Commission the highest under the CCCFA so far. Westpac had self-reported the conduct and refunded 2.67 million NZD to those affected.

Authority / court

High Court (Klage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003, ss 9C(1), 9C(2)(a)(ii), 9C(2)(a)(iii)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Self-report, admission of the breaches before proceedings were filed and refunds of 2.67 million NZD to those affected.

Published

28 Nov 2025

Original amount 3,640,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Nov 2025.

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

Between February 2022 and July 2023 the meal-kit provider called former customers, ostensibly to gather feedback but mainly to offer them discount vouchers, without making clear that accepting could reactivate their paid subscription; after more than a million call attempts, almost 80,000 subscriptions were reactivated. After pleading guilty to five charges under s 11 of the Fair Trading Act, the company was fined 845,000 NZD on 16 October 2025.

Authority / court

Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, s 11

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

17 Oct 2025

Original amount 845,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Oct 2025.

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

Between 1 January 2022 and 22 March 2024 the airline gave passengers false information in individual replies, automated emails and on its website about their compensation rights under the Civil Aviation Act for delays and cancellations within its control, so that valid claims were refused. After pleading guilty to 20 representative charges, it was fined 2,250,000 NZD. The Commerce Commission (ComCom, New Zealand's competition and consumer authority) had already issued Jetstar with compliance advice for similar statements before the offending period.

Authority / court

Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, s 13(i)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Mitigating circumstances

Following the Commerce Commission's intervention, Jetstar compensated 2,692 affected customers with a total of 1,039,390 NZD.

Published

1 Sep 2025

Original amount 2,250,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Sep 2025.

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

The bank pleaded guilty to 21 charges under the Fair Trading Act because for years it had not provided services to customers on the agreed terms, for example discounts and interest-free periods under package agreements, correctly calculated repayments, the switch to principal repayments after interest-only periods and correct fees. Around 35,000 customers were overcharged a total of 6.8 million NZD; on 26 November 2024 the Auckland District Court imposed a fine of 1.5 million NZD. According to the Commerce Commission (New Zealand's consumer and competition regulator), the causes were errors in electronic systems and a lack of quality assurance checks on whether staff knew and followed the processes.

Authority / court

Auckland District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 13(i), 40(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

The bank had identified and reported the errors itself and is progressively refunding customers 9.2 million NZD.

Published

27 Nov 2024

Original amount 1,500,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Nov 2024.

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