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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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