Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 718 cases from 32 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by countryWhat for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by companyNo cases for this selection.
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2024 | 1 | €5,000 |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2025 | 1 | — |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2026 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | — |
2 cases
16 Oct 2024 DSB: 5,000 EUR against Covid laboratory with managing director as data protection officer €5,000
A limited company operating a diagnostic laboratory (name pseudonymised), which during the pandemic carried out up to 45,000 PCR analyses a day with around 200 employees, had appointed its managing director as data protection officer at the same time. Because of the resulting conflict of interest, the Austrian data protection authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 5,000 EUR; the penalty decision is final.
Whoever decides on the purposes and means of processing cannot monitor themselves as data protection officer.
- Authority / court
- Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)
- Area of law
- Data protection
- Legal basis
- Art. 37, Art. 38 Abs. 6 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Healthcare
- Employees
- 50 to 249
- Liability of senior managers
- The managing director was also appointed as data protection officer – an impermissible conflict of interest.
- DSB Straferkenntnis GZ 2024-0.641.771 vom 16.10.2024 (RIS) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
31 Jul 2025 BGH: no before-and-after images for nose and chin correction with hyaluronic acid Order
A practice for aesthetic treatments advertised hyaluronic acid filler injections for the nose and chin on its website and on Instagram using before-and-after images. In an action brought by a consumer advice centre (Verbraucherzentrale), the BGH upheld the injunction issued by the Higher Regional Court of Hamm (OLG Hamm): such procedures are deemed to be surgical cosmetic procedures, for which this kind of advertising is prohibited.
Instagram posts are also advertising – the strict limits of the law on advertising for medicinal products and treatments (Heilmittelwerberecht) apply to aesthetic procedures.
Social media advertising for healthcare services
- Authority / court
- Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat), Az. I ZR 170/24
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- § 11 Abs. 1 Satz 3 Nr. 1, § 1 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Buchst. c HWG; UKlaG
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Healthcare
- Published
- 31 Jul 2025
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link