Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 718 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 action- Fine 22 cases 76 % · €227.4m
- Order 4 cases 14 % ·
- Disgorgement of profits 3 cases 10 % · €181.6m
Who?
by sectorAll sectors
- Retail and e-commerce 11 cases 38 % · €91.2m
- Media and online platforms 7 cases 24 % · €27.7m
- Other 3 cases 10 % · €11.8m
- Financial services and insurance 2 cases 7 % · €87.1m
- Healthcare 2 cases 7 % · €4,722
- Transport, logistics and shipping 2 cases 7 % · €147m
- Construction and real estate 1 case 3 % · €43m
- Energy and utilities 1 case 3 % · €1.1m
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 | 2 | €7m |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2025 | 3 | €207,555 |
| Q4 2025 | 3 | €26.1m |
| Q1 2026 | 4 | €84.2m |
| Q2 2026 | 3 | €7.86m |
| Q3 2026 | 3 | €87.1m |
29 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
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
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
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
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
Report an error
19 Nov 2025 Betreibergesellschaft des Onlineshops About You (Sitz Hamburg; in der Mitteilung nicht namentlich genannt)About You: 505 million HUF fine and compensation for countdown pressure and discount claims €1.32m
The fashion mail-order company presented discounts in a misleading manner and exerted psychological pressure with countdowns running down by the second and scarcity notices. In addition to a fine of 505 million HUF imposed by the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH), the Hamburg-based operating company committed to paying compensation of 1,750 HUF each to all Hungarian customers who made purchases between 31 December 2022 and 31 December 2024 (estimated at over 500 million HUF) and to a consumer protection compliance programme.
Countdown timers and scarcity banners must be true – otherwise they are prohibited purchasing pressure.
Dark patterns and price information in online shops
- Authority / court
- Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken gegenüber Verbrauchern
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Mitigating circumstances
- Acknowledgement, cooperation, customer compensation and compliance programme almost halved the fine.
- Published
- 19 Nov 2025
Original amount 505,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Nov 2025.
- Több mint egymilliárd forintot fizet az About You a magyaroknak Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Oct 2025 BGH: price reduction only permissible with a clearly legible 30-day lowest price Order
A food discounter advertised a coffee with a price reduction without stating the lowest total price of the previous 30 days unambiguously, clearly recognisably and legibly. In an action brought by the Wettbewerbszentrale (Centre for Protection against Unfair Competition), the BGH upheld the injunction issued by the lower courts (Regional Court of Amberg, Higher Regional Court of Nuremberg).
In all discount advertising, state the 30-day lowest price as clearly as the discount itself.
Price information in discount advertising (30-day lowest price)
- Authority / court
- Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat), Az. I ZR 183/24
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- § 11 Abs. 1 PAngV; § 5a Abs. 1, § 5b Abs. 4 UWG
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 9 Oct 2025
- Unzulässige Werbung mit einer Preisermäßigung (Nr. 184/2025) Court press release
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Sep 2025 TicketmasterTicketmaster commits to price transparency following Oasis presale 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.
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
- CMA secures changes from Ticketmaster following Oasis tickets investigation Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
31 Jul 2025 BGH: no before-and-after images for nose and chin correction with hyaluronic acid Order
A practice for aesthetic treatments advertised hyaluronic acid filler injections for the nose and chin on its website and on Instagram using before-and-after images. In an action brought by a consumer advice centre (Verbraucherzentrale), the BGH upheld the injunction issued by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm (OLG Hamm): such procedures are deemed to be surgical cosmetic procedures, for which this kind of advertising is prohibited.
Instagram posts are also advertising – the strict limits of the law on advertising for medicinal products and treatments (Heilmittelwerberecht) apply to aesthetic procedures.
Social media advertising for healthcare services
- Authority / court
- Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat), Az. I ZR 170/24
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Nr. 1, § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Buchst. c HWG; UKlaG
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Healthcare
- Published
- 31 Jul 2025
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Jul 2025 „Билла България“ ЕООД (Billa Bulgaria)Billa advertises oil containing 80% sunflower oil as olive oil – 405,936 leva €207,555
In June 2024, the retail chain advertised the product ‘Маслиново масло екстра върджин 20% – Basso Blend’ on its website, on radio, on television and online in such a way that olive oil was in the foreground, although the product consisted of 80% sunflower oil. The Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) opened proceedings of its own motion, considered the advertising misleading (Art. 32(1) in conjunction with Art. 33 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) and imposed 0.032% of 2024 turnover, i.e. 405,936 leva.
Advertising must not highlight the share of a high-quality ingredient in a way that misleads customers about the composition – responsibility lies with the advertiser, not the agency.
Product advertising and labelling of composition
- Authority / court
- Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 32 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 33 ZZK
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
Original amount 405,936 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Jul 2025.
- КЗК Публичен електронен регистър – Производство (Решение № 691 от 24.07.2025; Volltext als PDF im Register) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Mar 2025 Società Cooperativa Culture (CoopCulture)Colosseum tickets: CoopCulture 7 million EUR, around 20 million in total over ticket bots €7m
The Colosseum's ticketing service provider did not prevent tour operators from buying up basic tickets in bulk using bots, and itself reserved large allocations for more expensive packages; as a result, visitors could hardly find regular tickets. The AGCM imposed a fine of 7 million EUR on CoopCulture and further fines on six tour providers (including Tiqets, GetYourGuide, Musement), almost 20 million EUR in total.
Anyone selling a scarce allocation must actively prevent bot purchases and must not steer access towards expensive packages.
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 20, comma 2 Codice del Consumo (CoopCulture); Artt. 24, 25, 23 comma 1 lett. bb-bis (Touranbieter)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 8 Apr 2025
- PS12603 - Servizi Biglietteria Parco Archeologico del Colosseo, sanzionati CoopCulture e sei operatori turistici per quasi 20 milioni di euro Press release of an authority
- AGCM Provvedimento PS12603 (Biglietteria Colosseo), adunanza del 25 marzo 2025 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Feb 2025 Медицински център „Люлин Мед“ ООДMC Lyulin Med presented practice as branch of the Military Medical Academy – 9,236 leva €4,722
Following a tip-off from the Military Medical Academy (VMA), the Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found that the centre presented its gynaecological practice as a VMA branch with signs reading ‘МЦ „ЛЮЛИН МЕД“ АГ – ВМА ФИЛИАЛ’ and corresponding online information. For misleading conduct (Art. 31 ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) it imposed 0.4% of 2023 turnover, i.e. 9,236 leva. An appeal has been lodged against the decision.
Cooperation with renowned institutions must not be presented as affiliation on signage and in online profiles.
- Authority / court
- Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Art. 31 ZZK (Irreführung)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Healthcare
Original amount 9,236 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Feb 2025.
- КЗК Публичен електронен регистър – Производство (Решение № 131 от 06.02.2025; Volltext als PDF im Register) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Dec 2024 GymBeam s.r.o.; Gymbeam Hungary Kft.GymBeam: 100 million HUF for impermissible health claims on food supplements €244,230
The food supplement retailer made extensive use of prohibited medicinal claims and unauthorised health claims in its advertising, suggested false discounts with struck-through prices and did not inform customers about how customer reviews were checked. Following acknowledgement and a commitment to a compliance programme with training, the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed 100 million HUF.
Product texts in online shops are advertising – content teams need the list of authorised health claims.
Permissible advertising claims for foods and food supplements
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken; EU-Health-Claims-Verordnung (VJ/51/2022)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- Acknowledgement, waiver of legal remedies and compliance programme with internal training and membership of the advertising self-regulatory body.
- Published
- 17 Dec 2024
Original amount 100,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Dec 2024.
- Megtévesztően kommunikált a GymBeam, 100 milliós bírságot fizet a cég Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Dec 2024 Salva Kindlustuse ASSalva Kindlustus: 10,000 EUR for motor insurance advertising without mandatory notice €10,000
Through Europark Estonia, the insurer placed advertising for motor third-party liability insurance that lacked the statutory notice referring to the insurance terms, and incorrectly stated on policies that the contracts had been concluded through a registered insurance agent. Fine of 10,000 EUR. Date = publication.
Anyone using distribution partners for advertising and concluding contracts must itself check their mandatory disclosures and registration.
Mandatory disclosures in financial advertising; management of distribution partners
- Authority / court
- Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- § 254 Abs. 2 KindlTS (Versicherungstätigkeitsgesetz); Werbegesetz
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Published
- 3 Dec 2024
- Finantsinspektsioon trahvis Salva Kindlustuse AS-i 10 000 euroga (03.12.2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link