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 regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by topicWho?
by sectorAll sectors
- Retail and e-commerce 16 cases 32 % · €2.23bn
- Media and online platforms 10 cases 20 % · €31.7m
- Financial services and insurance 6 cases 12 % · €89.3m
- Other 5 cases 10 % · €11.8m
- Transport, logistics and shipping 5 cases 10 % · €150.7m
- Healthcare 3 cases 6 % · €133,279
- Energy and utilities 2 cases 4 % · €1.12m
- Construction and real estate 1 case 2 % · €43m
- Food and agriculture 1 case 2 % · €657,549
- Telecoms, IT and software 1 case 2 % · €6.35m
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 1 | €2.28m |
| Q4 2023 | 1 | €441,276 |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2024 | 3 | €3.45m |
| Q3 2024 | 2 | €43m |
| Q4 2024 | 4 | €147.3m |
| Q1 2025 | 4 | €7m |
| Q2 2025 | 4 | €400,000 |
| Q3 2025 | 5 | €2.14bn |
| Q4 2025 | 7 | €32.2m |
| Q1 2026 | 6 | €88.3m |
| Q2 2026 | 4 | €8.57m |
| Q3 2026 | 9 | €92.1m |
50 cases
17 Sep 2026 FleetCor Technologies Inc. (heute Corpay Inc.)FleetCor/Corpay pays 100 million USD over hidden fees on fuel cards €87.1m
In 2023, a federal court found by way of summary judgment that the fuel card provider had charged its predominantly small business customers hidden or unauthorised fees and misrepresented savings; an appeals court upheld this in 2026. According to the FTC, the fees added up to hundreds of millions of dollars, and late fees were also charged despite punctual payment. Under the settlement resolving the administrative proceedings, FleetCor and CEO Ronald Clarke are paying 100 million USD for refunds; the order is not yet final.
Fees hidden behind links or in account documents are deemed not to have been disclosed – including vis-à-vis business customers.
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Liability of senior managers
- CEO Ronald Clarke is named in the press release as a party involved.
- Published
- 17 Sep 2026
Original amount 100,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Sep 2026.
- FleetCor Agrees to Pay $100 Million to Resolve Administrative Action After Federal Court Finds It Violated the FTC Act Press release of an authority
- FTC Case: Fleetcor Technologies, In the Matter of (Docket 9403) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
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
13 Aug 2026 Dante International S.A.; Extreme Digital-eMAG Kft. (Betreiber des eMAG-Webshops)eMAG: further 225 million HUF for unfulfilled commitments €620,091
In 2021, the operators of the online retailer eMAG had committed to a support programme for Hungarian businesses, but once again implemented it only partially and not with the prescribed content. In the follow-up review, the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed 225 million HUF; in total, the operators have already received fines of 710 million HUF.
Commitments made binding by an authority require dedicated implementation and evidence controlling – otherwise the next fine follows.
- Authority / court
- Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail
- Legal basis
- Nachprüfungsverfahren zu verbindlichen Zusagen (VJ/6/2025)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Repeat case
- yes
- Mitigating circumstances
- The companies acknowledged the failures and waived legal remedies.
- Published
- 13 Aug 2026
Original amount 225,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Aug 2026.
- Újabb 225 milliós GVH-bírságot kapott az eMAG, mert megint hiányosan teljesítette a saját vállalásait Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Aug 2026 Lime Technology S.r.l., EmTransit S.r.l. (Dott), Bird Rides Italy S.r.l.Rome: 2.675 million EUR against e-scooter and e-bike sharing providers over blocked free rides €2.68m
The three sharing providers made it difficult for holders of a Metrebus annual pass to access the free-ride passes promised when the concessions were awarded, through inadequate organisation, cumbersome activation and long waiting times, which shortened the usable time; Bird also deactivated accounts without prior notice. The AGCM imposed fines totalling 2.675 million EUR in three proceedings (Lime 1.4 million, Dott 525,000, Bird 750,000 EUR).
Promised benefits must also be redeemable in organisational terms – sluggish processing can itself be unfair.
Customer service and redemption of promised services
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
- Legal basis
- Codice del Consumo (pratiche commerciali scorrette), Verfahren PS13028, PS13029, PS13030
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Transport, logistics and shipping
- Published
- 6 Aug 2026
- PS13028-PS13029-PS13030 - Roma, sanzioni per 2,675 milioni di euro a operatori monopattini elettrici ed e-bike in sharing Press release of an authority
- AGCM Provvedimento PS13028 (Lime Technology S.r.l.) Decision of an authority
- AGCM Provvedimento PS13029 (EmTransit S.r.l. – Dott) Decision of an authority
- AGCM Provvedimento PS13030 (Bird Rides Italy S.r.l.) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
29 Jul 2026 AvisAvis: maximum fine of 1 million EUR for handling fee on traffic fines €1m
The car rental company charged customers an "administration fee" of 33.88 to 45 EUR when a rental car incurred a traffic offence – even though naming the driver is a statutory obligation of the rental company. Spain's Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and 2030 Agenda classified this as a very serious infringement and imposed the maximum fine of 1 million EUR; a court had already declared the clause void in 2020.
No additional fee may be charged for fulfilling statutory obligations – least of all after a court has prohibited the clause.
- Authority / court
- Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
- Legal basis
- Artt. 82, 87.5 y 87.6 TRLGDCU (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Transport, logistics and shipping
- Repeat case
- yes
- Published
- 29 Jul 2026
- Consumo sanciona con un millón de euros a la empresa de alquiler de coches Avis por prácticas abusivas Press release 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
28 Jul 2026 TrenitaliaTrenitalia removes hurdles to refunds for delays following AGCM proceedings Order
For refunds in the event of delays of 60 minutes or more or cancellations, Trenitalia required prior written confirmation from the call centre or ticket office. The AGCM accepted binding commitments: abolition of the confirmation requirement, strengthened refund channels, an information page on disruptions and an implementation report within three months; no infringement was found.
Additional formalities before statutory refunds act as a hurdle and lead to proceedings.
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
- Legal basis
- Codice del Consumo (impegni); EU-Fahrgastrechte im Eisenbahnverkehr
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Transport, logistics and shipping
- Mitigating circumstances
- Binding commitments, no finding of an infringement.
- Published
- 30 Jul 2026
- PS13019 - Trenitalia, accolti impegni su ostacoli ai rimborsi per ritardi prolungati e cancellazioni treni Press release of an authority
- AGCM Provvedimento PS13019 (Trenitalia), Annahme der Zusagen, adunanza del 28 luglio 2026 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Jul 2026 BGH: online cancellation page must not offer a "pause contract" alternative Order
On the confirmation page of its online cancellation process, a gym operator displayed a highlighted notice with the button "Pause contract via self-service"; in addition, the confirmation button was labelled "Find contract", which the defendant had already acknowledged. In an action brought by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband), the BGH ruled that the confirmation page may only contain the information required for the cancellation and the confirmation button, set aside the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf) dismissing the action to that extent and ordered the operator to cease and desist.
Keep retention or pause offers off the confirmation page of the online cancellation process.
Design of the cancellation process (cancellation button, retention offers)
- Authority / court
- Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat), Az. I ZR 200/25
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
- Legal basis
- § 312k Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 2 BGB (Kündigungsbutton)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 16 Jul 2026
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Jul 2026 Vanilla Chip LLC (TruHeight)TruHeight: FTC settlement over allegedly fake reviews for growth supplement €657,549
According to the FTC, employees of the dietary supplement provider wrote thousands of five-star reviews, customers received free products or discounts in return for five-star reviews, and bot profiles posed as real users; in addition, there were unsubstantiated growth claims for children and adolescents. The final settlement order provides for a judgment of 4 million USD, which is partially suspended on account of limited ability to pay after payment of 750,000 USD.
Reviews by employees or reviews rewarded for positive star ratings are prohibited and, since 2024, subject to civil penalties.
Fake and purchased customer reviews
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act; FTC Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- Partial suspension of the judgment on account of limited ability to pay.
- Liability of senior managers
- The co-founders and co-CEOs Eden Stelmach and Justin Rapoport are personally parties to the order.
- Published
- 15 Jul 2026
Original amount 750,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jul 2026.
- FTC Takes Action Against TruHeight for Deceptive, Unsubstantiated Advertising Press release of an authority
- FTC Approves Final Order Against TruHeight (15.07.2026) Press release of an authority
- FTC Case: TruHeight (Vanilla Chip LLC), Docket C-4837, Final Decision and Order Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Jun 2026 Neonet S.A.Neonet: 3 million PLN over false delivery and availability information on Allegro €709,854
On its Allegro account, the electronics retailer promised dispatch within 24 hours even for goods not in stock and did not inform customers in good time of delays or unavailability. UOKiK imposed a fine of 3,043,000 PLN; the decision is not final.
Link delivery and availability information to stock levels; in the event of delays, inform customers immediately.
Availability and delivery information on marketplaces
- Authority / court
- Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
- Legal basis
- Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 26 Jun 2026
Original amount 3,043,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Jun 2026.
- Empty promises from Neonet – decision by the President of UOKiK Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
23 Jun 2026 Deghi S.p.A.Deghi: 2 million EUR for endlessly renewing countdown discounts €2m
From January 2024 to December 2025, the online retailer advertised time-limited discounts with countdown timers which, once they had expired, restarted with a new timer on identical terms. The AGCM classified this artificial scarcity as a particularly insidious dark pattern and imposed a fine of 2 million EUR.
A countdown must genuinely expire – an automatically restarting timer creates misleading scarcity.
False urgency and countdown timers in online marketing
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Codice del Consumo (pratiche commerciali scorrette)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 25 Jun 2026
- PS13027 - E-commerce, sanzione di 2 milioni di euro a Deghi S.p.A. per pratica commerciale scorretta Press release of an authority
- AGCM Provvedimento PS13027 (Deghi S.p.A.), adunanza del 23 giugno 2026 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
23 Jun 2026 TICKETBIS S.L. (StubHub UK)StubHub UK: 889,200 GBP penalty over mandatory fees added later €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.
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.
- StubHub UK: consumer protection enforcement case Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
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 €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.
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.
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
- 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.
- CMA orders the AA and BSM driving schools to refund learner drivers over drip pricing Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Mar 2026 Trustpilot Group Plc, Trustpilot A/S, Trustpilot S.r.l.Trustpilot: 4 million EUR fine for inadequate verification of the authenticity of reviews €4m
According to the AGCM, the review platform did not adequately check whether reviews – including those labelled as "verified" – were genuine, and allowed companies to invite specifically selected customers to leave reviews via paid services, which undermined the representativeness of the star ratings. In addition, information on how the platform works and on paid services was lacking; the authority also saw dark pattern elements in this.
Anyone who advertises with verified reviews must actually carry out the verification and disclose the selective collection of reviews.
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Artt. 20, 21, 22 e 23, comma 1, lett. bb-ter Codice del Consumo
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 23 Mar 2026
- PS12962 - Sanzione di 4 milioni di euro a Trustpilot per pratica commerciale scorretta Press release of an authority
- AGCM Provvedimento PS12962 (Trustpilot), adunanza del 17 marzo 2026 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Jan 2026 CineplexCineplex: Court of Appeal upholds 38.9 million CAD penalty for online booking fee €24m
The cinema company added a mandatory booking fee of 1.50 CAD to advertised ticket prices for online purchases. In September 2024, the Competition Tribunal classified this as drip pricing and imposed a penalty of 38.9 million CAD (the amount Cineplex had earned from it between June 2022 and December 2023) plus a ten-year prohibition; the Federal Court of Appeal dismissed the appeal in January 2026.
An advertised price must be attainable – only government charges may be added separately.
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Appeal / Competition Tribunal (auf Antrag des Competition Bureau)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Competition Act, Deceptive Marketing Practices (Drip Pricing, seit 24.06.2022 ausdrücklich geregelt)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 23 Jan 2026
Original amount 38,900,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jan 2026.
- Statement from the Acting Commissioner of Competition on appeal court's ruling in Cineplex deceptive marketing case Press release of an authority
- Competition Bureau wins deceptive marketing case against Cineplex Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
14 Jan 2026 Zalando SEZalando: around 31 million PLN for missing 30-day lowest prices on discounts €7.34m
Zalando did not display the lowest price of the previous 30 days for discounts, manipulated reference prices to make reductions appear larger and did not present the mandatory information consistently at all stages of the purchasing process. Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) imposed a fine of 30,945,000 PLN; the decision is not final.
Discount information must be identical and correct on all pages of a shop – listing, product page, shopping basket.
Presentation of discounts in online shops
- Authority / court
- Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Polnische Umsetzung der Omnibus-Richtlinie (Preisangaben bei Preisermäßigungen); Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 14 Jan 2026
Original amount 30,945,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Jan 2026.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
14 Jan 2026 Whaleco Technology Limited (Temu)Temu: almost 6 million PLN over changing reference prices and discount labelling €1.4m
The operator of the Temu interface omitted the 30-day lowest price or stated it incorrectly, labelled promotions inconsistently and changed reference prices from day to day without the actual price changing. UOKiK imposed a fine of 5,910,900 PLN; the decision is not final.
Reference prices that shift daily without any real price change are a misleading staging of discounts.
- Authority / court
- Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Polnische Umsetzung der Omnibus-Richtlinie (Preisangaben bei Preisermäßigungen); Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 14 Jan 2026
Original amount 5,910,900 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Jan 2026.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
13 Jan 2026 Maplebear Inc. (Instacart)Instacart pays 60 million USD in FTC settlement over "free delivery" with mandatory fees €51.5m
According to the FTC, Instacart advertised free delivery but charged mandatory service fees of up to 15 %, promised a "100 % satisfaction guarantee" without providing full refunds and did not sufficiently point out the subsequent charges for trial subscriptions. Under the settlement, the company is paying 60 million USD for refunds and must discontinue the practices complained of.
Anyone advertising something as "free" must not add a mandatory fee elsewhere.
Price advertising and disclosure of fees in marketing
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act; Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA)
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 18 Dec 2025
Original amount 60,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Jan 2026.
- Instacart to Pay $60 Million in Consumer Refunds to Settle FTC Lawsuit Press release of an authority
- FTC v. Maplebear Inc. d/b/a Instacart – Stipulated Order (N.D. Cal., dated 13.01.2026) Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
5 Jan 2026 Portugal: 16,000 EUR against filling station operator for forwarding complaints late €16,000
A filling station operator (medium-sized company, name not published) did not send the originals of eight sheets from the statutory complaints book to the authority on time. The Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (Portuguese Energy Services Regulatory Authority, ERSE) imposed 16,000 EUR for eight negligent administrative offences; the Competition, Regulation and Supervision Court upheld the fine in full on 14 July 2026.
Even formal obligations such as forwarding complaints book sheets are sanctioned per case – branch staff must know the procedure.
Timely forwarding of customer complaints from the complaints book
- Authority / court
- Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (ERSE)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail
- Legal basis
- Decreto-Lei n.º 156/2005 (Livro de Reclamações); Regime Jurídico das Contraordenações Económicas, Art. 18, 19
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Energy and utilities
- Employees
- 50 to 249
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- No previous record, no economic advantage
- ERSE – Decisões sancionatórias: Processo n.º 15/2024 – Postos de abastecimento de combustíveis Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Dec 2025 Jeronimo Martins Polska (Biedronka)Biedronka: almost 105 million PLN over undisclosed conditions for "100 % back" €24.7m
The supermarket chain advertised promotions such as "Special Wednesday" with "100 % money back as a voucher", but did not state restrictions concerning product categories, minimum spend and use of the vouchers in radio, app and in-store advertising, only on the receipt, the website or in-store notices. UOKiK imposed a fine of 104,722,016 PLN; the decision is not final.
State the essential restrictions of a promotion in the advertising itself, not just on the receipt.
Complete promotion terms in advertising
- Authority / court
- Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen (irreführende Werbung durch Unterlassen)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Culpability
- intentional
- Published
- 4 Dec 2025
Original amount 104,722,016 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Dec 2025.
- When a promotion fails to mention what is important – nearly PLN 105 million in fines for Biedronka Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link