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

The CCPC found that the retailer had not stated the correct prior price for price reductions on brownthomas.com and arnotts.ie during the 2024/2025 winter sales. The company pleaded guilty in January 2026; in March 2026 the court ordered a donation of €1,000 to a charity and struck out the charges without conviction.

Authority / court

Dublin District Court (Anklage: Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Regulation 5A European Communities (Requirements to Indicate Product Prices) Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 639/2002), geändert durch S.I. No. 597/2022

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

5 Jul 2026

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

The FCA directed the claims management company Conclusive Financial Limited, which also trades as “PCP Refunds”, with immediate effect to remove adverts for motor finance compensation claims and to refrain from similar adverts in future. The adverts used, without permission, edited video clips of the founder of a well-known consumer finance website as well as the FCA logo, presented the firm's authorised status as a mark of quality, cited an unsubstantiated average refund of 1,846 GBP and did not adequately explain the fees charged for its “No Win, No Fee” service.

Authority / court

Financial Conduct Authority (FCA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

s. 137S FSMA 2000; CMCOB 3.2.1R, 3.2.7R und 3.2.9R

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

14 Apr 2026

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

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.

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

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

From February 2020 to May 2024, Excom Global advertised its rental of mobile Wi-Fi routers for travel abroad ('Imoto no WiFi') in travel-guide adverts and on its own websites as number one for customer satisfaction, for being chosen by overseas travellers and for customer service. The commissioned survey, without checking actual use, merely asked for impressions of the websites of the company and nine arbitrarily selected competitors and was also not reproduced accurately; a surcharge of 172,620,000 JPY was imposed.

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 8 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Culpability

negligent

Published

12 Mar 2026

Original amount 172,620,000 JPY, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Mar 2026.

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

According to the FTC and eleven states, Walmart misled the drivers of its Spark Driver delivery service about base pay, incentives and tips, so that they lost tens of millions of dollars in earnings. The court order comprises judgments of 100 million USD: 89 million USD for the FTC (of which 10 million USD is paid and 16,175,302 USD goes into a driver fund, the remainder suspended because of back payments already made) and 11 million USD for the states. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mit elf Bundesstaaten (AZ, CA, CO, IL, MI, NC, OK, PA, SC, UT, WI)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 6801–6809, 6821–6827); Verbraucherschutzgesetze der klagenden Bundesstaaten

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

26 Feb 2026

Original amount 100,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Mar 2026.

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

From April to October 2021 the Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC, Quebec's consumer protection office) checked the prices of seven advertised products in flyers, online and in three stores in the greater Montréal area: the regular prices cited as the reference were actually charged in only a very small share of sales. Canadian Tire pleaded guilty, for five of the products, to stating false reference prices contrary to s. 225(b) of the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC, Quebec Consumer Protection Act) and must pay fines totalling CAD 1,287,550 including costs on 74 counts.

Authority / court

Gericht in Montréal (Ermittlung: Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC); Anklage: Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP))

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Loi sur la protection du consommateur (RLRQ c. P-40.1), Art. 225 b)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

6 Feb 2026

Original amount 1,287,550 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Feb 2026.

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

With effect from 4 April 2022, Orange Polska unilaterally introduced a fee for keeping the phone number active in existing prepaid contracts, although neither the law nor the contract allowed this change, and it failed to disclose the fee on starter packs and on its website. UOKiK classed both as unfair practices and imposed fines of PLN 17,325,000 and PLN 7,425,000, totalling PLN 24,750,000. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 24 Abs. 2 Nr. 3 und Art. 27 ustawa o ochronie konkurencji i konsumentów i. V. m. Art. 4 und Art. 6 ustawa o przeciwdziałaniu nieuczciwym praktykom rynkowym

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Original amount 24,750,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Jan 2026.

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

On 30 January 2026 the Perth Magistrates Court convicted Jim's Realty Pty Ltd on 35 charges – client money not credited to the trust account, unlawful withdrawals, improper records and tenancy bonds lodged late or not at all – and fined it 225,000 AUD plus 577.50 AUD in costs. A forensic audit commissioned by Consumer Protection WA (the consumer protection division of Western Australia) had identified 57 unexplained withdrawals totalling more than 334,915 AUD. According to the regulator it is the largest fine ever imposed on an estate agency in Western Australia; the company has been in liquidation since 2024.

Authority / court

Consumer Protection WA (Department of Local Government, Industry Regulation and Safety) / Perth Magistrates Court

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Real Estate and Business Agents Act 1978 (WA); Residential Tenancies Act 1987 (WA)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Construction and real estate

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

None; according to the release, the court found no mitigating factors despite the liquidation.

Published

11 Feb 2026

Original amount 225,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Jan 2026.

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

According to the AGCM, eDreams misled consumers about the alleged benefits of its "Prime" subscription using deceptive design elements and manipulative techniques and pushed them into membership (practice A); it also made it hard to leave the subscription (practice B). Vacaciones eDreams S.L., eDreams International Network S.L. and eDreams S.r.l. were jointly and severally fined 6,000,000 and 3,000,000 EUR, a total of 9,000,000 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

Art. 20, 21, 22, 23 Abs. 1 lit. g, 24, 25, 26 lit. f Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

4 Feb 2026

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

The energy regulator punished 13 offences by EDP Comercial with a combined fine of 260,000 EUR, halved to 130,000 EUR in the settlement procedure. The offences included supplier switches without explicit consent or without checking entitlement, unlawful disconnections and capacity reductions, missed call-centre response targets in 2023 and 2024, an absolutely prohibited standard contract clause and a marketing message that did not disclose its commercial purpose.

Authority / court

Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (ERSE)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Lei n.º 9/2013 (RSSE) i. V. m. RRC 2021/2023, RQS 2023 und Diretiva ERSE n.º 22/2022; Art. 18 Decreto-Lei n.º 446/85; Art. 9 Decreto-Lei n.º 57/2008 i. V. m. RJCE

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Partial admission, cooperation, evidence of remediation, the company's financial situation and compensation of six customers (50 EUR each) were taken into account in the settlement procedure.

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

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Published

18 Dec 2025

Original amount 60,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Jan 2026.

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

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.

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

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

In a promotional letter of January 2025 for its paid fan club 'TEAM26', the baseball club Chiba Lotte Marines gave the impression that every new member would definitely receive a ball hand-signed by a player at the booth by the stadium, although only some members received one. Instead of an order, a commitment plan was approved on 23 December 2025 – a board resolution, information for consumers, measures to prevent recurrence, allegedly a partial refund of annual fees and reports on implementation; no infringement was thereby established.

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 30, Art. 31 Abs. 1 und 3 (Zusagenverfahren), Verdacht eines Verstoßes gegen Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Published

23 Dec 2025

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

Four online licensees trading as Paddy Power and Betfair (PPB Entertainment Limited, PPB Counterparty Services Limited, Betfair Casino Limited, TSE Malta LP) will pay a total of £2,000,000 in lieu of a financial penalty under a settlement and contribute to the Commission's investigation costs. An assessment in April and May 2024 found that their customer interaction systems identified signs of harm such as rapidly rising deposits or very long gambling sessions too late; one customer, for example, staked £86,000 within 16 days without a manual account review. The company had already been penalised in 2023 for marketing to vulnerable customers.

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, 4, 7, 8 und 11 der Licence Conditions and Codes of Practice (LCCP)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Full cooperation, early acceptance of the failings and swift implementation of an action plan.

Published

17 Dec 2025

Original amount 2,000,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Dec 2025.

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 64,055,311 EUR on the holiday rental platform Airbnb, mainly because 65,122 listings advertised holiday homes without a licence, with a non-matching registration number or without accurate information on the legal status of the hosts (63,980,311 EUR, six times the unlawful profit). In addition, 10,000 EUR were imposed for missing information on distance contracts, 10,000 EUR for unanswered information requests and 55,000 EUR for failing to comply with interim orders; Airbnb must also remove the unlawful content and publish the sanction. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 47.1 Buchst. m), t), i) und o) Texto refundido de la Ley General para la Defensa de los Consumidores y Usuarios (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

15 Dec 2025

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

The telecoms provider pleaded guilty to using a prohibited clause allowing unilateral amendment of contracts without the specific conditions required by law, and to omitting mandatory information from distance contracts for successive services, such as a detailed description of the services, the price and description of devices offered as a premium, usage restrictions and geographical limits. Fines totalling CAD 210,700 including costs were imposed on 50 counts; the offences dated from 2012 and 2013.

Authority / court

Gericht in Montréal (Ermittlung: Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC); Anklage: Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP))

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Loi sur la protection du consommateur (RLRQ c. P-40.1), Art. 11.2 und 214.2

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

6 Feb 2026

Original amount 210,700 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Dec 2025.

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

Euro Car Parks left a formal CMA information notice served in July 2025 unanswered for around three months despite repeated attempts at contact, later saying it had blocked the authority's emails as suspected fraud. The CMA did not accept this as a reasonable excuse and, in its first penalty under the new DMCCA powers, imposed a fixed penalty of GBP 473,000; the company has appealed to the High Court, and no breach of consumer law has been found. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Schedule 5 paragraph 16C(2) Consumer Rights Act 2015 (geändert durch den Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Published

13 Feb 2026

Original amount 473,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Dec 2025.

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

In December 2024 Bank Nagelmackers published, as paid partner content in a magazine, an interview about a sub-fund of its SICAV without identifying it as advertising and without first submitting it to the FSMA (Belgian Financial Services and Markets Authority) for approval. References to the prospectus, the key information document and investor rights, the main risks and the costs were missing, and the benefits were highlighted without presenting the risks equally prominently. Under the settlement the bank pays 60,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Autoriteit voor Financiële Diensten en Markten / Autorité des services et marchés financiers (FSMA) – Directiecomité (minnelijke schikking)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 60 § 3 und Art. 64 Gesetz vom 3. August 2012 über Organismen für gemeinsame Anlagen; Art. 35–43 KE vom 12. November 2012; Art. 4 Verordnung (EU) 2019/1156; Art. 71 § 3 Gesetz vom 2. August 2002

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Online version removed about ten days after publication, approval process tightened with a systematic double check; subscriptions did not increase afterwards.

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

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.

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.

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

According to the FTC, the telemedicine company advertised GLP-1 weight-loss programmes with monthly prices that did not include medication, laboratory costs and medical consultations, concealed the minimum term and cancellation fees, published fake testimonials from employees and relatives, and induced customers to delete negative reviews by offering vouchers or refunds. Under the final settlement order, the company is paying 150,000 USD jointly with other liable parties (joint payment), which is earmarked for refunds.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Healthcare

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

3 Dec 2025

Original amount 150,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Dec 2025.

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

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

Authority / court

High Court (Klage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

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

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

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

Published

28 Nov 2025

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

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

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.

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.

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

IVASS (Italian insurance supervisor) imposed a fine of 533,000 EUR on Genertel S.p.A. under Art. 310(1) of the Private Insurance Code (CAP). In 198 motor third-party liability claims between 1 September 2023 and 29 February 2024, the insurer failed to meet the statutory deadlines for making a compensation offer to the injured party or giving reasons for rejecting the claim. According to IVASS statistics, this was the largest single fine of 2025.

Authority / court

IVASS (Istituto per la Vigilanza sulle Assicurazioni)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Art. 141, 148, 149, 150 und 310 Abs. 1 D.Lgs. 209/2005 (CAP); Art. 8 D.P.R. 254/2006

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

31 Dec 2025

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

NSW Fair Trading (the consumer protection regulator of New South Wales) cancelled the motor dealer licence of Atom Motorss Pty Ltd on 17 November 2025 and disqualified the company for five years. Measures against individuals are not set out here. According to the release, the company had traded as a motor dealer without a licence and, when selling vehicles to consumers, had given false information from the Personal Property Securities Register (PPSR, the register of security interests in personal property) in the prescribed dealer forms.

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)(f) und (g); zugrunde liegende Verstöße gegen den Motor Dealers and Repairers Act 2013 und das Australian Consumer Law

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not set out here.

Published

12 Mar 2026

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

The Konsumentombudsmannen (KO, Swedish Consumer Ombudsman) issued H&M with a prohibition order (föreläggande) because, when advertising price reductions, the company had stated a higher price than the lowest price applied in the previous 30 days, in breach of the Price Information Act (prisinformationslagen). The prohibition is backed by a conditional fine (vite) of 2,000,000 SEK; KO reduced it from 3 million SEK because the breach was limited and H&M had taken countermeasures. An earlier supervisory case from 2023 on long sale periods had been closed in March 2024 after the company stated, among other things, that it was working continuously to comply with the rules.

Authority / court

Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) / Konsumentverket

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Prisinformationslagen (Angabe des niedrigsten Preises der letzten 30 Tage bei Preisermäßigungen)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Limited breach and countermeasures taken: conditional fine reduced from 3 million to 2 million SEK.

Published

17 Nov 2025

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

The Swedish financial supervisory authority Finansinspektionen (FI) examined consumer loans granted by the lender over four weeks in summer 2024 and found at least around 30 cases in which consumers without the ability to repay received loans. FI issued a remark and imposed 20 million SEK.

Authority / court

Finansinspektionen (FI)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Konsumentkreditlagen (2010:1846), Kreditprüfung

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

11 Nov 2025

Original amount 20,000,000 SEK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Nov 2025.

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

According to the allegations of the attorneys general, the online fashion retailer enrolled buyers in a paid VIP membership programme without their express consent, presented prices in a misleading way and made cancellation difficult. Under the settlement with 32 states and D.C., TFG is providing around 3.8 million USD in automatic refunds and paying 1 million USD to the states; the settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt.

Authority / court

Attorney General of Pennsylvania (verhandelt mit Maryland, Texas und D.C.; Vergleich mit 33 Attorneys General)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Verbraucherschutzgesetze der beteiligten Bundesstaaten

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

23 Oct 2025

Original amount 4,800,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Oct 2025.

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

On the website of its 'NOVA' English schools, NOVA Language Company advertised several courses, for example in September 2024, by waiving an enrolment fee of 22,000 JPY (11,000 JPY for a children's course). The company had not charged anyone such a fee over a considerable recent period; the order required a corrective notice, measures to prevent recurrence and cessation.

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Other

Published

17 Oct 2025

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

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

Authority / court

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

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, s 11

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

17 Oct 2025

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

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

During an inspection, the Finantsinspektsioon (Estonian Financial Supervision Authority) found that Inbank Finance’s internal rules on assessing the creditworthiness of consumers did not fully comply with the law and that the assessment itself showed deficiencies. It issued an order requiring the company to remedy the deficiencies by mid-December. Date = publication.

Authority / court

Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Gesetz über Kreditgeber und -vermittler (KAVS), verantwortungsvolle Kreditvergabe

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

14 Oct 2025

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

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).

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

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

According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), Amazon used confusing order screens to push millions of customers into Prime subscriptions without their consent and deliberately made cancellation difficult. The settlement comprises a civil penalty of 1 billion USD and 1.5 billion USD in refunds, as well as a clear decline button and simple cancellation.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA); Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Liability of senior managers

The press release names a Senior Vice President and a Vice President.

Published

25 Sep 2025

Original amount 2,500,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 27 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

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.

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

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

According to the AGCM, ALD Automotive Italia gave long-term rental customers insufficient information about the optional liability-limitation service and about the criteria for assessing damage on return, and charged damage as unreported even where it was not visible to the naked eye for an average consumer or did not result from an incident. The authority imposed a fine of 5,000,000 EUR and prohibited continuation.

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

Art. 20, 21, 22, 24, 25 Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Mitigating circumstances

The basic amount of 7,000,000 EUR was reduced to 5,000,000 EUR because ALD had remedied the information deficiencies through its own measures and mitigated their effects.

Published

9 Oct 2025

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

According to the FTC complaint, the education provider hid the cancellation option for its automatically renewing subscriptions on its website and, since October 2020, continued to charge almost 200,000 customers even after they had cancelled. Under the settlement, Chegg is paying 7.5 million USD for refunds and must offer simple cancellation.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA); Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Repeat case

yes

Published

15 Sep 2025

Original amount 7,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Sep 2025.

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

From 8 October to 23 November 2024, Japanet Takata offered a two-tier New Year food box ('osechi' for 2025) in its online shop, stating that the 'Japanet regular price' of 29,980 JPY had been reduced by 10,000 JPY to 19,980 JPY, with the regular price presented as applying after the promotion ended. There was no reliable plan to sell at the higher price afterwards; the investigation was conducted jointly with the Kyushu office of the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC, 公正取引委員会).

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

12 Sep 2025

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

On 8 September 2025, on application by the National Consumer Commission (NCC, South Africa's consumer protection authority), the National Consumer Tribunal (NCT, the consumer protection adjudicator) found that car dealer Kia East Rand (Pty) Ltd had breached section 56(3) of the Consumer Protection Act: a used car sold in September 2022 remained defective despite several repair attempts, and the dealer refused the buyer's request to cancel the sale. The Tribunal ordered a refund of the purchase price of 245,075 ZAR within ten days and imposed an administrative fine of 50,000 ZAR.

Authority / court

National Consumer Tribunal (auf Antrag der National Consumer Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Section 56(3) Consumer Protection Act 68 of 2008; Verwaltungsstrafe nach Section 112

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Automotive

Repeat case

no

Original amount 50,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Sep 2025.

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

By way of a penalty order, the ČNB (Czech National Bank) fined UniCredit Bank Czech Republic and Slovakia 6,000,000 CZK for breaching the duty of professional care under the Banking Act. In 2023 and 2024 the bank settled foreign-currency card payments, contrary to its own card terms, at its own exchange rate, which was less favourable to customers, instead of the VISA rate, affecting 75,712 transactions of 9,467 customers and 16,896 transactions of 2,271 customers. Compensation of customers only began some ten to eleven months later.

Authority / court

Česká národní banka (ČNB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

§ 12 Abs. 3, § 36e Abs. 1 lit. o und Abs. 6 lit. c Zákon č. 21/1992 Sb. (Bankengesetz)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Original amount 6,000,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Sep 2025.

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

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

Authority / court

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

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, s 13(i)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Mitigating circumstances

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

Published

1 Sep 2025

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

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

Despite price guarantees it had given, an electricity and gas supplier tried at the end of July 2022 to impose unilateral price increases from 1 September 2022, often raising the unit price by several hundred per cent. The Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) found that it had breached the information and transparency duties of Section 41(5) of the Energy Industry Act (EnWG), that the increases were therefore invalid and that from March 2023 it had nonetheless billed customers who had objected at the higher prices; it ordered all adjustments to be withdrawn and reversed within six months and threatened a penalty payment of 100,000 EUR. The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) upheld the decision on 13 August 2026 (not final).

Authority / court

Bundesnetzagentur (Bescheid bestätigt durch OLG Düsseldorf, 5. Kartellsenat, Beschluss vom 13.08.2026)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

§ 41 Abs. 5 Satz 1 und 3 EnWG; § 40 Abs. 2 Satz 1 Nr. 3 Alt. 2 EnWG; OLG-Az. VI-5 Kart 2/26 [V]

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Energy and utilities

Published

14 Aug 2026

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

The energy regulator imposed a combined fine of 400,000 EUR on electricity and gas supplier Petrogal, halved to 200,000 EUR in the settlement procedure. The trigger was an incident in 2023 in which an external service provider deleted all customer call recordings older than 30 days; further breaches were unpaid compensation, incorrect invoice data, deficient customer information, late replies to telephone enquiries and complaint-book entries that were not forwarded.

Authority / court

Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (ERSE)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Lei n.º 9/2013 (RSSE) i. V. m. RRC 2020, RRC 2023, RQS 2021/2023 und Diretiva ERSE n.º 1/2018; Decreto-Lei n.º 134/2009; Decreto-Lei n.º 156/2005

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation, remedying of the breaches, compensation of the customer and the company's financial situation were taken into account in the settlement procedure.

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

The Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE) fined an unnamed finance company AED 600,000 under Article 137 of the central bank law (Decretal Federal Law No. 14 of 2018). Examinations had found that the company had failed to comply with the central bank's Market Conduct and Consumer Protection Regulations and Standards.

Authority / court

Central Bank of the UAE (CBUAE)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Art. 137 Decretal Federal Law No. (14) of 2018; CBUAE Market Conduct and Consumer Protection Regulations and Standards

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

6 Aug 2025

Original amount 600,000 AED, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Aug 2025.

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

P&G Japan advertised its 'Febreze bathroom anti-mould' product (ファブリーズ お風呂用防カビ剤), among other things on the packaging from April 2022 to May 2023, by claiming that simply placing it in the bathroom would prevent black mould for around six weeks. The documents submitted did not substantiate this effect, so the advertising was deemed misleading; the order required a corrective notice, measures to prevent recurrence and cessation.

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 7 Abs. 1 und 2 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 1 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Chemicals and pharmaceuticals

Published

1 Aug 2025

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

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.

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

The Armani companies advertised ethical and social responsibility commitments, among other places in their code of ethics and on their website, while production of certain items was outsourced directly or indirectly to workshops, some operating illegally, where workers were employed at inadequate wages, beyond statutory working-time limits and with deficient health and safety conditions. The AGCM found the claims misleading and fined Giorgio Armani S.p.A. and G.A. Operations S.p.A. 3,500,000 EUR jointly and severally.

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 Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

The basic amount of 5,000,000 EUR was reduced to 3,500,000 EUR because, according to records of the Tribunale di Milano (Milan court), G.A. Operations had implemented the requirements of the court-appointed administrator and brought the procedure to an early close on 18 February 2025.

Published

1 Aug 2025

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

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.

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.

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

Ofgem found that the business electricity supplier lacked robust, documented processes – they relied on the knowledge of a single employee – and therefore collected direct debits from customers it was not, or no longer, supplying; 25 customers suffered a detriment of around GBP 175,000. Following a provisional order in May 2024, the authority confirmed a penalty of GBP 223,676, from which it deducted GBP 9,096 in goodwill payments already made, leaving GBP 214,580 to pay.

Authority / court

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem) für die Gas and Electricity Markets Authority

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Standard Licence Condition 4A.1 der Stromversorgungslizenz; section 27A Electricity Act 1989

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Energy and utilities

Employees

Under 50

Mitigating circumstances

Remedial action after the provisional order; goodwill payments of GBP 9,096 already made were credited.

Published

19 Jun 2025

Original amount 214,580 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jun 2025.

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

From November 2020 to July 2024, users of OLX.pl could rate sellers even without having made a purchase, buyers with several purchases could not rate all sellers, and a weighted algorithm inflated positive ratings and classified below-average scores as positive; individual ratings could not be viewed. The UOKiK (Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów, the Polish Office of Competition and Consumer Protection) imposed around 28.4 million PLN by decision DOZIK-2/2025; OLX has since switched the system to averages from verified buyers. The decision was not final at the time of publication; OLX may appeal to the Court of Competition and Consumer Protection.

Authority / court

Präsident des Amts für Wettbewerbs- und Verbraucherschutz (UOKiK)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Gesetz über Wettbewerbs- und Verbraucherschutz; Gesetz zur Bekämpfung unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Mitigating circumstances

Rating system changed as of 31 July 2024.

Published

12 Jun 2025

Original amount 28,420,869 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Jun 2025.

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

Between December 2023 and February 2024, Svea Finance’s internal rules on consumer lending did not comply with the law (50,000 EUR), and the company concluded credit agreements without assessing all prescribed creditworthiness components (150,000 EUR). Fines totalling 200,000 EUR for two misdemeanours. Date = publication.

Authority / court

Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

§ 98 Abs. 2 und § 99 Abs. 2 KAVS

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

11 Jun 2025

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

Following an investigation into fake reviews and "catalogue abuse" (transferring good reviews to other products), Amazon undertook to the CMA to detect and remove such reviews quickly, to sanction infringing sellers up to and including a ban on selling, and to set up simple reporting channels.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Enterprise Act 2002, Part 8 (Verpflichtungszusagen nach altem Durchsetzungsregime)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Voluntary undertakings without a fine.

Published

6 Jun 2025

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

On application by the Hrvatska narodna banka (HNB, Croatian National Bank), the Općinski prekršajni sud u Zagrebu (Zagreb Municipal Misdemeanour Court) convicted OTP banka d.d. of nine misdemeanours under consumer credit, residential mortgage credit, credit institutions and consumer protection law, including because consumer credit agreements concluded between September 2021 and December 2022 lacked information on the total amount payable, on the assumptions used to calculate the annual percentage rate and on the supervisory authority. The bank received fines totalling 117,070 EUR; the judgment has been final since 18 July 2025.

Authority / court

Općinski prekršajni sud u Zagrebu (auf Antrag der Hrvatska narodna banka)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Art. 26, 27 Zakon o potrošačkom kreditiranju; Art. 361.b Zakon o kreditnim institucijama; Art. 41 Zakon o stambenom potrošačkom kreditiranju; Art. 138 Zakon o zaštiti potrošača

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Repeat case

yes

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

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

On the website wolffashion.de, GT Ecom B.V. did not clearly tell buyers before purchase that goods would be shipped directly by the manufacturer from China and that returns had to be sent to China. The ACM (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, Dutch competition and consumer authority) considered 100,000 EUR appropriate and reduced the fine to 90,000 EUR because the company admitted the infringements in the simplified procedure.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Art. 8.2a Abs. 1 Whc i. V. m. Art. 6:230m Abs. 1 lit. g und h BW

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

10% reduction for admitting and ending the infringements and cooperating in the simplified procedure.

Published

8 May 2025

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

From 6 December 2023 to 24 February 2024, Bondora concluded consumer credit agreements without assessing all criteria provided for by law and satisfying itself of the borrowers’ ability to repay. In misdemeanour proceedings, the Finantsinspektsioon (Estonian Financial Supervision Authority) imposed 200,000 EUR. Date = publication.

Authority / court

Finantsinspektsioon (Estnische Finanzaufsicht)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

§ 99 Abs. 2 KAVS

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

30 Apr 2025

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

A social-media campaign by the bank in December 2023 (#KeFestive), featuring a well-known public figure, presented personal loans as an investment; the authority found this factually incorrect and misleading and also identified weaknesses in the approval process for advertising. Of the 700,000 ZAR penalty, 200,000 ZAR was suspended for two years; the bank has paid 500,000 ZAR. The amount and the facts have not been confirmed against the primary source.

Authority / court

Financial Sector Conduct Authority (FSCA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Sections 6(1), 6(3)(a), 6(3)(b) und 6(9) Conduct Standard 3 of 2020 (Banks)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation during the investigation and prompt remedial action; 200,000 ZAR suspended for two years, provided the bank complies with the Conduct Standard.

Published

22 Apr 2025

Original amount 700,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 Apr 2025.

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

Two gym operators announced a fee increase of 6 EUR a month and treated silence or the failure to exercise a special right of termination as consent. In an action brought by the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (Bundesarbeitskammer), the OGH upheld the prohibition of such increases without express agreement and the publication of the judgment; it dismissed claims for repayment and information.

Authority / court

Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH), GZ 4 Ob 51/25s

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

§ 6 Abs. 1 Z 2, § 28a KSchG; §§ 1a, 14 UWG

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Other

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

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.

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

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

A gas supplier had stopped supplying around 350,000 household customers without notice in December 2021 and terminated the contracts retroactively. When it sought to resume business in 2023, the Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) made this subject to conditions because of the management's continuing unreliability: only gradual customer growth until spring 2028, submission of audited annual accounts for 2023 to 2026 and notification of changes to procurement, tariffs and terms until the end of 2027, with penalty payments of up to 100,000 EUR for breaches. The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) dismissed the appeal on 23 July 2026; a further appeal on points of law has been allowed.

Authority / court

Bundesnetzagentur (Bescheid bestätigt durch OLG Düsseldorf, 5. Kartellsenat, Beschluss vom 23.07.2026)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

EnWG – Teiluntersagung der Tätigkeit als Energielieferant wegen Unzuverlässigkeit der Geschäftsleitung (Auflagen mit Zwangsgeldandrohung); OLG-Az. VI-5 Kart 1/26 [V]

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Energy and utilities

Liability of senior managers

The decisive factor was the unreliability of management; according to the court's findings it showed no insight and settled customers' losses only inadequately.

Published

23 Jul 2026

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

The energy regulator punished 25 offences by Gold Energy with a combined fine of 180,000 EUR, halved to 90,000 EUR in the settlement procedure. They included 15 supplier switches without explicit consent, missing information on the social tariff in contracts, incomplete and miscalculated invoices, an unlawful disconnection, price increases without 30 days' notice and false information given to consumers as an unfair commercial practice.

Authority / court

Entidade Reguladora dos Serviços Energéticos (ERSE)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Lei n.º 9/2013 (RSSE) i. V. m. RRC 2021/2023 und Portaria n.º 348/2017; Art. 7 und 8 Decreto-Lei n.º 57/2008 (unlautere Geschäftspraktiken) i. V. m. RJCE

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Admission, cooperation, evidence of remediation, customer compensation and the company's financial situation were taken into account in the settlement procedure.

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

Between 2016 and 2018 Allianz Australia and AWP, the company marketing and administering travel insurance on Allianz’s behalf, published online information on travel insurance that stated maximum benefits without adequately pointing out sub-limits, conditions and exclusions. The Court convicted Allianz on six counts at AUD 2.25 million each (AUD 13.5 million) and AWP on one count at AUD 3.3 million, in each case after a 25% discount for early guilty pleas. 781 customers had previously received compensation totalling AUD 1,264,864.

Authority / court

Supreme Court of New South Wales (Anklage des Commonwealth Director of Public Prosecutions nach Ermittlungen der ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

ss 1041E(1), 1311(1) Corporations Act 2001 (Cth)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty pleas at the earliest opportunity, voluntary disclosure, full cooperation with the investigating authorities and compensation of affected customers.

Liability of senior managers

In 2016 a General Manager declined an external legal review of the website estimated at AUD 25,000 to 30,000; the Court saw the cause of the offences in an unwillingness to spend money on adequate oversight.

Published

28 Feb 2025

Original amount 16,800,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Feb 2025.

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

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.

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.

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

Google undertook to the CMA to improve the detection and removal of fake reviews, to ban repeat offenders worldwide, to place warnings on business profiles with manipulated reviews and deactivate their review function, and to set up simple reporting channels; the CMA will monitor implementation for three years.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Britisches Verbraucherschutzrecht (Verpflichtungszusagen)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Voluntary undertakings without a fine.

Published

24 Jan 2025

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

The Banca d'Italia (Bank of Italy) imposed a fine of 480,000 EUR on Banco di Desio e della Brianza S.p.A. under Art. 144 of the Consolidated Banking Act (TUB). An inspection from 2 October to 15 December 2023 found shortcomings in organisation and controls for compliance with the rules on transparency and fair treatment of customers, including Arts. 117-bis, 126-septies and 126-quinquiesdecies et seq. TUB; the bank's corrective measures were taken into account.

Authority / court

Banca d'Italia

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Art. 127 Abs. 01 TUB i. V. m. Art. 117-bis, 126-septies und 126-quinquiesdecies bis 126-septiesdecies TUB; Transparenzbestimmungen der Banca d'Italia vom 29.07.2009; Art. 144 TUB

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

The bank's corrective measures were taken into account in setting the fine.

Published

14 Mar 2025

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

According to the CFPB, Equifax did not properly reinvestigate disputes about credit report entries, allowed deleted entries to be reinserted, informed consumers inadequately of the results and did not block entries resulting from identity theft as required (Fair Credit Reporting Act). The company also sold inaccurate credit scores after test code had been introduced into a production server; the order imposes a fine of 15 million USD. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Fair Credit Reporting Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 1681c, 1681e, 1681i); Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, §§ 1031, 1036

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

17 Jan 2025

Original amount 15,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Jan 2025.

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

The CFPB found that Block did not effectively prevent and address fraud on Cash App, handled disputes and chargebacks unfairly, did not provide effective customer service, misled users about protection against unauthorised transfers and breached error-resolution duties under the Electronic Fund Transfer Act and Regulation E. The order imposes a fine of 55 million USD and requires 75 million USD for redress, which may rise to up to 120 million USD (up to 175 million USD in total). The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment. The amount field records only the civil monetary penalty.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010 (12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536); Electronic Fund Transfer Act und Regulation E (12 C.F.R. §§ 1005.6, 1005.7, 1005.11, 1005.13, 1005.18)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Published

16 Jan 2025

Original amount 55,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Jan 2025.

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

According to the FTC, the AI-powered review platform collected star ratings for its business customers at the time of purchase, before customers had received the product or service, thereby inflating average ratings and review counts, including in search engine results. The FTC issued a final settlement order prohibiting such misrepresentations.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

3 Jan 2025

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

The FTC and the Illinois Attorney General alleged that the delivery service misled customers about delivery costs and blocked their accounts and balances, promised drivers inflated earnings and listed restaurants without their consent. The court order sets a judgment of 140 million USD, suspended except for a payment of 24.8 million USD to the FTC; in addition, 200,000 USD goes to Illinois (25 million USD in total). The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) und Attorney General of Illinois

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act; Impersonation Rule (16 C.F.R. Part 461); Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (815 ILCS 505); Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (815 ILCS 510)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

17 Dec 2024

Original amount 25,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Dec 2024.

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

Following an objection to a penalty order, the ČNB (Czech National Bank) fined the non-bank consumer lender Provident Financial 8,000,000 CZK. From October 2021 to October 2022 the creditworthiness rules for the products “Půjčka Provident” and “Půjčka Creditea” allowed, among other things, unverified or overstated income, insufficiently established or entirely disregarded expenses and understated liabilities, and in every contract examined (53 and 25 respectively) the company granted loans without an adequate creditworthiness assessment. The ČNB Bank Board dismissed the appeal on 15 May 2025 and upheld the decision.

Authority / court

Česká národní banka (ČNB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

§ 15 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Abs. 2 lit. c, § 86 Abs. 1, § 148 Abs. 1 lit. b, § 154 Abs. 1 lit. e und Abs. 3 lit. c Zákon č. 257/2016 Sb. (Verbraucherkreditgesetz, Fassung bis 31. 12. 2023)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Original amount 8,000,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Dec 2024.

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

According to the complaint of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC, the US consumer protection authority), the AI writing service offered a “Testimonial & Review” feature that generated detailed customer reviews with entirely invented details from brief, generic input; individual users produced hundreds to tens of thousands of reviews with it. With the final settlement order (3–2 vote), the FTC prohibited Rytr from offering any service for generating reviews. On 22 December 2025, the FTC set the order aside again with Rytr’s consent (2–0 vote): the facts alleged in the complaint did not support a violation of Section 5 of the FTC Act, and the order unduly burdened AI innovation, contrary to the Trump Administration’s AI Executive Order and AI Action Plan.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act (Mittel zur Täuschung bereitgestellt)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

overturned

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Published

18 Dec 2024

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

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

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

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

Authority / court

Auckland District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

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

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

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

Published

27 Nov 2024

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

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

The Spanish Ministry of Consumer Affairs imposed a fine of 107,775,777 EUR on Ryanair, including for charging for cabin baggage, surcharges for adjacent seats for children and persons requiring assistance, refusing cash payments at airports, a fee for printing boarding passes that the ministry considered excessive, and non-transparent price information. The fine was part of a package of sanctions totalling 179 million EUR against five low-cost airlines. Ryanair has challenged it before the High Court of Justice of Madrid (Tribunal Superior de Justicia de Madrid), which suspended enforcement in June 2025 subject to a guarantee; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 47 TRLGDCU (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007), infracciones muy graves

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

22 Nov 2024

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

In the same package of sanctions against low-cost airlines, Vueling received a fine of 39,264,412 EUR, including for fees for cabin baggage, surcharges for seats next to accompanied children and what the ministry considered misleading omissions in the presentation of prices on its website. The decision could be challenged in court; whether it is final has not been confirmed.

Authority / court

Ministerio de Derechos Sociales, Consumo y Agenda 2030

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 47 TRLGDCU (Real Decreto Legislativo 1/2007), infracciones muy graves

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Transport, logistics and shipping

Published

22 Nov 2024

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

Because of a billing system error, former prepayment customers of E.ON Next did not receive final bills on time between February 2021 and September 2023; more than 248,000 customer accounts were affected, credit balances were not refunded and mandatory compensation was not paid. After self-reporting, the company paid GBP 14.5m in total (4.7m in credit refunds, 6.6m in compensation under the Guaranteed Standards of Performance and 3.2m in additional redress) and also wrote off the debts of almost 150,000 former customers.

Authority / court

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Standard Licence Condition 27.17 der Gas- und Stromversorgungslizenzen; Guaranteed Standards of Performance Regulations

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Mitigating circumstances

Self-reporting, commendable engagement in the compliance process and the company's past performance were taken into account in setting the redress; the billing systems were corrected.

Published

20 Nov 2024

Original amount 14,500,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Nov 2024.

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

Opus Energy self-reported that two faults in its billing system had led to overcharging on 87,825 business customer accounts between 2003 and 2023, for example through wrong tariffs or duplicated billing periods. Ofgem found breaches of the licence conditions on fair treatment, operational capability and billing based on meter readings; Opus is paying a package of GBP 7,077,077 in total, made up of GBP 3,914,531 in refunds, GBP 1,597,058 in inflation uplift, GBP 1,304,555 in goodwill payments and GBP 260,933 to the energy industry voluntary redress fund.

Authority / court

Office of Gas and Electricity Markets (Ofgem)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Standard Licence Conditions 0A, 4A und 21B der Gas- und Stromversorgungslizenzen

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Energy and utilities

Mitigating circumstances

Self-reporting, full cooperation and swift remediation; according to Ofgem the package would otherwise have been higher.

Published

13 Nov 2024

Original amount 7,077,077 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Nov 2024.

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

According to the CFPB, as issuing bank of the Apple Card Goldman failed to acknowledge and resolve transaction disputes on time, reported disputed amounts to credit bureaus prematurely and investigated disputes inadequately (Truth in Lending Act, Regulation Z); the card was launched although the board had been warned shortly beforehand that the dispute system was not fully ready. The bank also gave the misleading impression that device purchases would automatically be converted into interest-free instalments; the order requires 19.8 million USD in redress and a fine of 45 million USD. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment. The amount field records only the civil monetary penalty.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Truth in Lending Act und Regulation Z; Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, §§ 1031, 1036

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Employees

10,000 or more

Liability of senior managers

The CFPB stresses that the board had been warned four days before the card's launch that the dispute system was not ready.

Published

23 Oct 2024

Original amount 45,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Oct 2024.

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

According to the CFPB, Apple in some cases failed to forward Apple Card users' disputes to the issuing bank Goldman Sachs and designed advertising and the checkout process so that customers wrongly assumed device purchases would automatically be split into interest-free instalments (Apple Card Monthly Installments). The order imposed a fine of 25 million USD; in September 2025 the CFPB terminated it early after the fine had been paid. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Consumer Financial Protection Act of 2010, §§ 1031, 1036 (12 U.S.C. §§ 5531, 5536) – unlautere, irreführende und missbräuchliche Praktiken

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Telecoms, IT and software

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

23 Oct 2024

Original amount 25,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Oct 2024.

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