Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa: 2,207 cases from 44 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by action- Fine €11.3m 83 % · 4 cases
- Order €1.48m 11 % · 7 cases
- Disgorgement of profits €786,106 6 % · 2 cases
Who?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2 | €100,000 |
| 2023 | 1 | €1.48m |
| 2024 | 2 | – |
| 2025 | 5 | €6.79m |
| 2026 | 3 | €5.22m |
13 cases
6 Aug 2026 Brand Developers Limited (The TV Shop)The TV Shop: 1,104,000 NZD for manipulated online reviews and misleading claims €562,720
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).
Staff reviews without disclosure and filtering out negative reviews are misleading – review processes need clear rules and oversight.
Authenticity of online reviews and accurate statements on consumer rights
- 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.
- Commerce Commission: The TV Shop to pay $1.104m for conduct that included misleading customers (11.08.2026) Press release of an authority
- Commerce Commission, Case register: Brand Developers Limited t/a TV Shop (PRJ0046693) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
15 Jul 2026 Vanilla Chip LLC (TruHeight)TruHeight: FTC settlement over allegedly fake reviews for growth supplement €657,549
According to the FTC, employees of the dietary supplement provider wrote thousands of five-star reviews, customers received free products or discounts in return for five-star reviews, and bot profiles posed as real users; in addition, there were unsubstantiated growth claims for children and adolescents. The final settlement order provides for a judgment of 4 million USD, which is partially suspended on account of limited ability to pay after a joint payment of 750,000 USD by the liable parties.
Reviews by employees or reviews rewarded for positive star ratings are prohibited and, since 2024, subject to civil penalties.
Fake and purchased customer reviews
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act; FTC Rule on the Use of Consumer Reviews and Testimonials
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- Partial suspension of the judgment on account of limited ability to pay.
- Liability of senior managers
- 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.
- FTC Takes Action Against TruHeight for Deceptive, Unsubstantiated Advertising Press release of an authority
- FTC Approves Final Order Against TruHeight (15.07.2026) Press release of an authority
- FTC Case: TruHeight (Vanilla Chip LLC), Docket C-4837, Final Decision and Order Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Mar 2026 Trustpilot Group Plc, Trustpilot A/S, Trustpilot S.r.l.Trustpilot: 4 million EUR fine for inadequate verification of the authenticity of reviews €4m
According to the AGCM, the review platform did not adequately check whether reviews – including those labelled as "verified" – were genuine, and allowed companies to invite specifically selected customers to leave reviews via paid services, which undermined the representativeness of the star ratings. In addition, information on how the platform works and on paid services was lacking; the authority also saw dark pattern elements in this.
Anyone who advertises with verified reviews must actually carry out the verification and disclose the selective collection of reviews.
- Authority / court
- Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Artt. 20, 21, 22 e 23, comma 1, lett. bb-ter Codice del Consumo
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 23 Mar 2026
- PS12962 - Sanzione di 4 milioni di euro a Trustpilot per pratica commerciale scorretta Press release of an authority
- AGCM Provvedimento PS12962 (Trustpilot), adunanza del 17 marzo 2026 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Dec 2025 Southern Health Solutions, Inc. (Next Medical / NextMed)NextMed: FTC settlement over allegations of hidden costs and review manipulation €128,557
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.
"Buying off" negative reviews with vouchers is just as misleading as inventing positive ones.
Review manipulation and price disclosures
- 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.
- FTC Takes Action Against Telemedicine Firm NextMed Press release of an authority
- FTC Approves Final Order against Telehealth Provider NextMed (03.12.2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link
Report an error
12 Jun 2025 Grupa OLX sp. z o.o.UOKiK: 28.4 million PLN against OLX over misleading rating system €6.66m
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.
Make sure a rating average shows what it promises – disclose any weighting, reclassification or admission of non-buyers.
- 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.
- Mylący system ocen na OLX.pl – decyzja Prezesa UOKiK Press release of an authority
- Confusing rating system at OLX.pl – decision of the President of UOKiK Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Jun 2025 AmazonAmazon commits to the CMA to tougher action against fake reviews Order
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.
Anyone who publishes reviews must maintain active processes against fakes and the transfer of reviews.
- 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
- Amazon gives undertakings to CMA to curb fake reviews Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Jan 2025 GoogleGoogle commits to the CMA to tougher action against fake reviews Order
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.
Companies that buy reviews risk visible warnings and the loss of their reviews on platforms.
- 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
- CMA secures important changes from Google to tackle fake reviews Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Jan 2025 GGL Projects, Inc. (Sitejabber)Sitejabber: review platform counted reviews before goods were received Order
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.
Ratings submitted before use must not be included in averages as experience-based reviews.
- 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
- FTC Approves Final Order against Sitejabber Press release of an authority
- FTC Case: Sitejabber (In the Matter of GGL Projects, Inc.) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Dec 2024 Rytr LLCFTC bans Rytr’s AI review generator – order set aside a year later overturned
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.
Take responsibility for the authenticity of AI-generated reviews you publish – in the Rytr case, the FTC ultimately saw no violation in merely offering an AI writing tool.
- 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
- FTC Approves Final Order against Rytr, Seller of an AI “Testimonial & Review” Service Press release of an authority
- FTC Reopens and Sets Aside Rytr Final Order in Response to the Trump Administration’s AI Action Plan Press release of an authority
- FTC Announces Crackdown on Deceptive AI Claims and Schemes Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Jun 2024 a Japanese medical corporationClinic operator: order over discounts in exchange for five-star Google Maps reviews Order
The medical corporation promised people attending an internal medicine clinic it operates for a flu vaccination a reduction in the vaccination fee if they rated the clinic with five or four stars on Google Maps. Consumers could not recognise the resulting reviews as advertising prompted by the provider; the order required it to stop displaying them, inform consumers and take preventive measures that also cover the medical staff.
Reviews obtained in exchange for discounts or other benefits are the provider's own advertising and must not appear as independent customer opinions.
Stealth marketing and incentivised reviews
- Authority / court
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- 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
- Healthcare
- Published
- 7 Jun 2024
- Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 6 Jun 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Aug 2023 a US housing listings platformFTC and six states: settlement with housing platform over tens of thousands of purchased reviews €1.48m
According to the Federal Trade Commission (FTC, the US consumer protection authority) and six state attorneys general, the housing listings platform flooded the internet with tens of thousands of purchased four- and five-star reviews and charged fees for access to listings that often turned out to be fake. The settlement order filed with the federal court in New York permanently bans the platform from paid or incentivised reviews; the judgment of 36.2 million USD plus 10.9 million USD in civil penalties payable to the states is suspended after a joint payment of 1.6 million USD by the liable parties.
Do not buy reviews; this can lead to permanent bans and monitoring duties for all marketing partners.
Buying reviews and monitoring affiliate partners
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mit den Attorneys General von New York, Kalifornien, Colorado, Florida, Illinois und Massachusetts
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act; Verbraucherschutzgesetze der beteiligten Bundesstaaten
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Mitigating circumstances
- Payment obligation suspended down to 1.6 million USD owing to limited financial capacity.
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Published
- 28 Aug 2023
Original amount 1,600,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Aug 2023.
- FTC, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Press release of an authority
- FTC, Cases and Proceedings (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 28 Aug 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
10 Nov 2022 a Dutch web shop operatorACM: €100,000 fine for a web shop over delivery times and filtered reviews €100,000
On two of its websites, the web shop operator did not provide clear information on delivery times, published positive reviews it had written itself and withheld most negative customer reviews. Taking the company's financial position into account, the ACM (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, Dutch competition and consumer authority) imposed a fine of 100,000 EUR.
Reviews must be genuine and published unfiltered; suppressing negative feedback is as misleading as invented praise.
Handling customer reviews and delivery time information in online retail
- Authority / court
- Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- Art. 8.8 Whc i. V. m. Art. 6:193c Abs. 1 lit. b und c sowie Art. 6:193g lit. v BW
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Mitigating circumstances
- In setting the amount, the ACM took the web shop operator's financial circumstances into account.
- Published
- 9 Dec 2022
- ACM, Veröffentlichungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2022) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 10 Nov 2024 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Sep 2022 LG Hamburg: advertise star ratings only with the number of reviews and the period covered Order
A platform matching property sellers with estate agents advertised average star ratings without stating the number, period and distribution of the reviews. In an action brought by the Wettbewerbszentrale, the Regional Court of Hamburg (LG Hamburg) ordered it to cease and desist insofar as the total number and period were missing; the further claim for a breakdown by star category was dismissed by the Higher Regional Court of Hamburg (OLG Hamburg) and the BGH (judgment of 25 July 2024).
Anyone advertising with average ratings must at least state the number of underlying reviews and the period they cover.
Advertising with customer reviews
- Authority / court
- Landgericht Hamburg (Revision der Klägerin zum Umfang beim BGH)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
- Legal basis
- §§ 3, 5a Abs. 1, 8 UWG
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Published
- 25 Jul 2024
- Bundesgerichtshof, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2022) Court press release
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 5 · Company name anonymised since 16 Sep 2024 · Direct link