Who was sanctioned, and for what?

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.

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

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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 a further settling party are jointly paying 100 million USD for refunds; the order is not yet final.

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

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

17 Sep 2026

Original amount 100,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Sep 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

Despite promising no hidden fees, the travel app, according to the FTC, charged tips and fees for a VIP support service without consent because they were hidden and pre-selected, and misled users about total prices and the benefits of VIP support and price freezing. The court order against the Canadian Hopper Inc. and its US subsidiary sets 35 million USD, payable in twelve instalments. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

2 Jul 2026

Original amount 35,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Aug 2026.

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

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.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Nachprüfungsverfahren zu verbindlichen Zusagen

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.

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

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

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.

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

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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).

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

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

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.

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

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

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).

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

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

A national advertising campaign from January 2020 to August 2021 promised purchases at Harvey Norman with 60 months interest free and no deposit, but concealed that a credit card such as the Latitude GO Mastercard was required, with monthly account fees and, until March 2021, establishment fees. After liability was established in 2024 and upheld on appeal in 2025, the Court set penalties of AUD 35 million against Harvey Norman and AUD 20 million against Latitude and ordered corrective notices on the home pages for 90 days. It based the higher penalty for Harvey Norman on its lower level of contrition.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

ss 12DB(1)(a), (g), (i), 12DF(1) ASIC Act 2001 (Cth); Haftungsfeststellung auch zu s 12DA(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

In the Court’s view Latitude showed contrition; the advertising complained of had ceased.

Liability of senior managers

The Court regarded public statements by Harvey Norman’s board chair as showing disregard for potential harm to consumers and therefore considered a higher penalty necessary.

Published

28 Jul 2026

Original amount 55,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Jul 2026.

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

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.

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

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

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

According to the Attorney General's office, the company sold an annual shipping subscription ("Celebrations Passport") whose terms between February 2021 and June 2022 appeared only in small print, in linked terms or in pop-up boxes; a post-purchase acknowledgement and a notice before automatic renewal were missing. In the Assurance of Discontinuance it undertakes to pay 375,000 USD in penalties, fees and costs, to refund subscribers and to change its subscription processes. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Office of the New York State Attorney General

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

New York General Business Law §§ 349, 527-a; Executive Law § 63(12); Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (15 U.S.C. § 8403)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

22 Jul 2026

Original amount 375,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jul 2026.

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

In a settlement procedure the energy regulator ordered electricity and gas supplier Enforcesco to pay 107,920 EUR in total: 90,000 EUR (halved from 180,000 EUR) under the energy-sector sanctions regime and 17,920 EUR in voluntarily paid fines for economic administrative offences. The breaches included taking over 6,853 customers without explicit consent, failing to hold the required natural gas security reserves from January 2023 to February 2025, incorrect invoices, an unlawful disconnection and a call-centre answer rate of only 57.8% in 2023.

Authority / court

Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (ERSE)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Lei n.º 9/2013 (RSSE), Art. 28 und 29, i. V. m. RRC 2020 und geltendem RRC, RQS, Diretivas ERSE n.º 1/2018 und 22/2022, Portaria n.º 59/2022; RJCE

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Full admission, cooperation, remedying of all breaches, the company's financial situation and compensation of three customers (150 EUR in total) were taken into account in the settlement procedure.

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

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.

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

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 a joint payment of 750,000 USD by the liable parties.

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

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

15 Jul 2026

Original amount 750,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

In its flight booking flow, Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. did not show clearly whether a ticket was refundable and which cancellation or change fees applied – the information could only be reached via a link to baggage rules – and, for accommodation paid later, displayed a price without the possible surcharge of up to 5%, partly in a foreign currency. The authority regarded this as a breach of the duty to explain key terms under the Telecommunications Business Act (전기통신사업법), imposed a fine of 2,424,000,000 KRW and ordered Agoda to show conditions, fees and final prices early and clearly, to check screen flows internally in advance and to have Korean translations reviewed by professionals.

Authority / court

Korea Media and Communications Commission (KMCC, 방송미디어통신위원회)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Telecommunications Business Act (전기통신사업법) Art. 50(1) Nr. 5-2, Art. 52, Art. 53; Enforcement Decree Art. 42 i. V. m. Anhang 4

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction of 10% because the authority had not imposed a fine in the preceding three years; partial voluntary corrections made after the investigation began were not accepted as a mitigating factor.

Published

6 Jul 2026

Original amount 2,424,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Jul 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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

NSW Fair Trading (the consumer protection regulator of New South Wales) reprimanded used car dealer OzCar Pty Ltd on 22 June 2026 and imposed conditions on its dealer licence. The regulator refers to the maximum available in disciplinary proceedings and does not state the amount imposed on the company. The investigation found a pattern of dishonest conduct between 2023 and 2025; among other things, customers reported being pressured into signing or misled about the purpose of contracts, that contracts were not properly explained – including to particularly vulnerable buyers – and that vehicles of unacceptable quality were sold. Among other things, the company must introduce a compliance programme with training for sales staff, may no longer allow waivers of the statutory cooling-off right to be pre-filled, and must fix defects affecting safety or reliability before sale.

Authority / court

NSW Fair Trading

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 (NSW), s 45(1)(a), (b), (d) und (d1)(ii)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

24 Sep 2026

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

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).

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

Between 2018 and 2020 the since-collapsed CFD issuer Union Standard and its two authorised representatives EuropeFX and TradeFred pushed inexperienced and vulnerable customers into trading risky contracts for difference using aggressive sales tactics; customers lost more than AUD 83 million, while in most cases the representatives profited from those losses. The Court imposed AUD 156.7 million on Union Standard, AUD 114.1 million on EuropeFX and AUD 29.4 million on TradeFred, together with a permanent ban on EuropeFX and an obligation for it to refund customers’ net deposits. For the first time a licensee was also penalised for distributing CFDs to customers in China although it knew or ought to have known of their legal risk.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

ASIC Act 2001 (Cth): Verbot von unconscionable conduct und irreführenden Angaben; Corporations Act 2001 (Cth): Pflicht des Lizenzinhabers zu effizienter, ehrlicher und fairer Leistungserbringung

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

12 Jun 2026

Original amount 300,200,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Jun 2026.

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

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).

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

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Philip Morris Italia widely promoted heated tobacco devices, e-cigarettes and nicotine products for oral use with phrases such as "senza fumo" (smoke-free) and a "smoke-free future"; the AGCM considered this misleading because it suggested that the products were harmless or less harmful, although they can endanger health and safety. The authority imposed a fine of 7,000,000 EUR and prohibited continuation; the proceedings were triggered by a report from the Ministry of Health.

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, 21 Abs. 1 und 3, 22 Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Published

10 Jun 2026

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

According to the Attorney General's office, the fitness franchisor stated three to six months until studio opening in the disclosure documents filed in New York, although it took more than 13 months on average and its own SEC reports showed longer periods. The Assurance of Discontinuance requires 3,971,250 USD: 3 million USD for 70 harmed franchisees (of which 300,000 USD is a civil penalty) and 971,250 USD in fee refunds to 25 franchisees who never opened. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Office of the New York State Attorney General (Investor Protection Bureau, Franchise Section)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

New York Franchise Sales Act (General Business Law §§ 680 ff., insb. § 687); Executive Law § 63(12)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Published

9 Jun 2026

Original amount 3,971,250 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jun 2026.

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

From 26 August 2020 to 15 May 2022, Coupang advertised a 'WOW Member Price' below the regular selling price in its online shop without disclosing that it included a coupon redeemable only once by new members of its paid WOW subscription. The KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission, Korea's competition and consumer authority) treated the omission of this information as deceptive advertising, issued a corrective order and imposed a fine of KRW 500 million, the statutory maximum fixed-amount fine.

Authority / court

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (täuschende Werbung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

9 Jun 2026

Original amount 500,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jun 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

NSW Fair Trading (the consumer protection regulator of New South Wales) reprimanded Leader Properties Investment Pty Ltd on 9 June 2026 and imposed a monetary penalty of 22,000 AUD because it had locked out a tenant and unlawfully taken possession of the rented home in breach of the Residential Tenancies Act 2010. All licensed agents of the company who provide property management must complete tenancy training. Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Authority / court

NSW Fair Trading

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Property and Stock Agents Act 2002 (NSW), s 192(1)(a), (c) und (d); Verstoß gegen den Residential Tenancies Act 2010 (NSW)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

25 Jun 2026

Original amount 22,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jun 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

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.

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

On the auction website Ticketveiling.nl, House of Tickets B.V. drove up the prices of auctioned lots with automatic bids placed by an algorithm and misled consumers about how the final price came about. The ACM (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, Dutch competition and consumer authority) considered 300,000 EUR appropriate and reduced the fine by 10% to 270,000 EUR because the company admitted the infringements in the simplified procedure; it decided not to fine Ticketveiling B.V.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 8.8 Whc i. V. m. Art. 6:193c Abs. 1 lit. d und Art. 6:193g lit. v BW

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

10% reduction for admitting the infringements and cooperating in the simplified procedure; the infringements were short and ended voluntarily before the investigation began.

Published

28 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

The online retailer sold household appliances and electronics on instalments and, between September 2021 and February 2025, calculated interest in more than 38,000 credit contracts on the total contract amount instead of the unpaid balance; customers paid almost AUD 20 million too much as a result. Sample contracts also exceeded the statutory annual cost rate cap of 48%. The Court imposed AUD 32 million for the interest calculation and AUD 1.5 million for exceeding the cap, and ordered publication of a notice.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

s 24(1) National Credit Code (Anhang 1 zum National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)) i. V. m. ss 23(1), 28, 32A(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

18 May 2026

Original amount 33,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 May 2026.

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

In its own online shop for Galaxy S25 pre-orders, KT Corporation stated that benefits would apply unless the end of the promotion was shown, but then limited them to the first 1,000 orders and unilaterally cancelled 7,127 pre-orders that had come in via a YouTube channel and Genie TV and had already been fully completed. The authority regarded this as false information on key terms and an unjustified refusal to conclude contracts under the Telecommunications Business Act (전기통신사업법), imposed a fine of 640,000,000 KRW and ordered KT to show additional pre-order benefits clearly in future.

Authority / court

Korea Media and Communications Commission (KMCC, 방송미디어통신위원회)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Telecommunications Business Act (전기통신사업법) Art. 50(1) Nr. 5 und Nr. 5-2

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

8 May 2026

Original amount 640,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 May 2026.

Checked against the official source on 4 Oct 2026 · Direct link

Following action by Consumer Affairs Victoria (the consumer protection regulator of the state of Victoria), the Federal Court of Australia ordered White Ray Oakleigh Pty Ltd, former operator of the Ray White Oakleigh agency, to pay 600,000 AUD because between February 2022 and November 2023 it advertised nine properties well below market value and at prices it did not itself expect to achieve (underquoting). According to the regulator, the agency agreements often provided for considerably higher commission on proceeds above the reserve price, and vendors were persuaded to lower their reserves after signing; text messages between the agents showed that they expected considerably higher prices. The court found misleading or deceptive conduct and false or misleading representations.

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Victoria / Federal Court of Australia

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Irreführendes Verhalten sowie falsche oder irreführende Angaben (Vorschriften in der Mitteilung nicht genannt)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

The company admitted the conduct and cooperated with the regulator in the court proceedings; it has not operated the agency since 2025.

Published

24 Apr 2026

Original amount 600,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Apr 2026.

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

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.

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

According to the FTC, StubHub displayed ticket prices on its website without clearly and conspicuously stating up front the total price including all mandatory fees. The court order relies on the new FTC rule against unfair or deceptive fees and requires StubHub to pay 10 million USD for consumer refunds. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

9 Apr 2026

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

The Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030 (Spanish Ministry of Social Rights, Consumer Affairs and 2030 Agenda) imposed fines totalling 3,600,902 EUR (1,000,000, 990,900, three times 500,000, 100,001 and 10,001 EUR) on the rental agency Alquiler Seguro for six very serious and one serious breach of tenants' consumer rights. Among other things, the company had required tenants to pay for a tenant service as management and contract costs, to take out home insurance for the landlord's benefit and to bear debt collection and court costs, used a clause allowing reporting to debtor registers and excluded the right of withdrawal. The clauses must be removed and the sanction published.

Authority / court

Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Verbraucherschutzrecht (in der Pressemitteilung nicht einzeln zitiert); Ley 12/2023, de 24 de mayo, por el derecho a la vivienda (Verbot, Verwaltungs- und Vertragskosten auf Mieter abzuwälzen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Published

8 Apr 2026

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

The AGCM objected to three unfair commercial practices by Revolut: unclear information that investors sometimes acquire only fractional shares, together with misleading "0% commission" advertising; unclear information on account blocks and their aggressive implementation without adequate prior notice or support; and missing information on the requirements and time needed to obtain an Italian IBAN. Fines of 5,000,000 EUR against Revolut Group Holdings Ltd and Revolut Securities Europe UAB, and of 5,000,000 and 1,500,000 EUR against Revolut Group Holdings Ltd and Revolut Bank UAB, each jointly and severally, were imposed, totalling 11,500,000 EUR.

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, 21, 22, 24, 25 Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

For the IBAN practice, the AGCM took into account measures that Revolut took on its own initiative during the proceedings.

Published

2 Apr 2026

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