Who was sanctioned, and for what?

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 Senior Vice President Neil Lindsay and Vice President Jamil Ghani.

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 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

From January 2013 to March 2022, the distributor of premium pet food and pet supplies imposed minimum resale prices on its retailers and threatened sanctions if they were undercut. In a settlement procedure, the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed 36.438 million CZK; the company ended the conduct after the inspection and introduced a compliance programme.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Verbot vertikaler Preisbindung (tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Termination immediately after the inspection, information of customers about free pricing, full cooperation, settlement and newly introduced compliance programme.

Published

24 Sep 2026

Original amount 36,438,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Sep 2026.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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 (VJ/6/2025)

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 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In 2018–2022, the distributor of professional hairdressing products (Alfaparf, Yellow) determined the prices at which its territorial representatives were allowed to sell to salons and retailers and restricted passive sales outside the territories. Under a settlement and with a commitment to a compliance programme, the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed 68.5 million HUF.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Ungarisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Verbot wettbewerbsbeschränkender Vereinbarungen (VJ/17/2022)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation, acknowledgement in the settlement and commitment to a comprehensive compliance programme.

Published

7 Aug 2026

Original amount 68,500,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 7 Aug 2026.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

AliExpress did not diligently assess the risks posed by illegal, unsafe and counterfeit products (including insufficient moderation capacity, recommender and advertising systems) and did not take effective countermeasures (including deficient enforcement of sanctions against traders, product checks that could be circumvented). The European Commission imposed 550 million EUR under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and required an action plan by 20 October 2026.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations

Legal basis

Verordnung (EU) 2022/2065 (DSA), Risikobewertung und Risikominderung

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Novelty of the Digital Services Act (taken into account by the Commission when setting the fine)

Published

20 Jul 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

At the truck parts distributor's Corpus Christi (Texas) site, an employee was asphyxiated while inspecting a tank trailer. The U.S. Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) found no confined space programme, deficiencies in the respiratory protection programme and electrical hazards, and proposed $264,380 (16 serious, 3 other violations).

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Labor – Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

29 CFR 1910.146 (Permit-required confined spaces); 29 CFR 1910.134 (Respiratory protection)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

15 Jul 2026

Original amount 264,380 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jul 2026.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In a targeted inspection of cookies on company websites, the Datu valsts inspekcija (Latvian Data State Inspectorate, DVI) found fault with the site 4mebeles.lv. After a reprimand in February 2026, the company claimed that the deficiencies had been remedied, which a further inspection disproved; further requests for information went unanswered. The DVI imposed 1,000 EUR for failure to cooperate and requested the missing information by 3 August 2026.

Authority / court

Datu valsts inspekcija (DVI)

Area of law

Data protection · Cookies and tracking

Legal basis

Art. 58 Abs. 1, Art. 83 Abs. 5 lit. e DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

yes

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (Croatian Competition Agency, AZTN) found that Kaufland Hrvatska charged food suppliers fees for services not provided and for advertising not commissioned, and paid for perishable goods only after more than 30 days. For these unfair trading practices, and with repeat offending as an aggravating factor (final penalty already in 2020), it imposed 300,000 EUR (date = publication).

Authority / court

Agencija za zaštitu tržišnog natjecanja (AZTN)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 4, 11, 12 Zakon o zabrani nepoštenih trgovačkih praksi u lancu opskrbe hranom (ZNTP)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Repeat case

yes

Published

24 Jun 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

At the warehouse and distribution centre in Listowel (around 130 employees at the site), a worker fell around 1.2 m while climbing down a ladder at high-bay racking. He had not been adequately informed, instructed and supervised on the safe use of ladders. Fine of CA$70,000 plus victim fine surcharge.

Authority / court

Provincial Offences Court Stratford (Ermittlung: Ontario Ministry of Labour, Immigration, Training and Skills Development)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Sections 25(2)(a), 66(1) Occupational Health and Safety Act (Ontario)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Guilty plea.

Published

8 Jul 2026

Original amount 70,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Jun 2026.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The online retailer had not set a retention period for customer accounts and kept data until customers requested deletion; purchases were only possible with an account. The sanctions board of the Finnish Data Protection Ombudsman imposed 856,000 EUR in 2024, the administrative court reduced the fine to 792,639 EUR on the basis of current turnover, and the Supreme Administrative Court (Korkein hallinto-oikeus, KHO) confirmed this on 12 June 2026.

Authority / court

Korkein hallinto-oikeus (KHO); Sanktionsgremium des Datenschutzbeauftragten

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. e DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

18 Jun 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A data subject complained about the disclosure of footage from the supermarket chain’s video surveillance and about the inadequate response to his access request. The Αρχή Προστασίας Δεδομένων Προσωπικού Χαρακτήρα (Hellenic Data Protection Authority) found that Market In had passed the video footage to the judicial authorities without informing the data subject beforehand, processed more data than necessary, failed to comply with the right of access and failed to cooperate with the authority, and by Decision 10/2026 imposed a total of 95,000 EUR (50,000 EUR for lawfulness/transparency, 20,000 EUR each for data minimisation and the right of access, 5,000 EUR for failure to cooperate); in the same proceedings, ΜΕΔΕ ΑΕ received 65,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Αρχή Προστασίας Δεδομένων Προσωπικού Χαρακτήρα (Hellenic Data Protection Authority)

Area of law

Data protection · Video surveillance

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a, c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 12, 13, 15, 31 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The importer and wholesaler of the Vans, Eastpak and The North Face brands contractually prohibited its retailers from using price comparison portals and search engine advertising (in particular Google Ads). The Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission) regarded this as a hardcore restriction in online sales and, in a settlement procedure (Decision 913/2026), set a reduced fine of 954,485 EUR; date = press release.

Authority / court

Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 1 Gesetz 3959/2011; Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 4 lit. e VO (EU) 2022/720

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure (Diettheti Diaforon) with fine reduction

Published

3 Jun 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Temu's 2024 risk assessment was based on general industry data rather than on findings about its own service and underestimated how often EU consumers encounter illegal products; test purchases revealed unsafe chargers and baby toys. The European Commission imposed 200 million EUR under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and required an action plan by 28 August 2026.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations

Legal basis

Verordnung (EU) 2022/2065 (DSA), Risikobewertungspflichten sehr großer Online-Plattformen; Art. 75

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

28 May 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

From July 2020 to June 2024, around 148 departing employees – including managers and staff from finance, legal and supply chain – signed separation agreements containing a waiver of SEC whistleblower awards. Foot Locker had itself phased out the clause from March 2024 but had not amended all templates; the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) imposed 148,000 US dollars.

Authority / court

U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission

Area of law

Whistleblower protection · Retaliation against whistleblowers

Legal basis

Securities Exchange Act of 1934, Rule 21F-17(a)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Clause phased out before contact by the SEC; cooperation and prompt remediation

Published

22 May 2026

Original amount 148,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 May 2026.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

For more than ten years from 2012, the distributor and retailer of consumer electronics and household appliances set minimum resale prices for its retail customers, monitored them and sanctioned deviations. The Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed 38.971 million CZK; a leniency application, settlement and an improved compliance programme reduced the fine, and the company appealed against the amount.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV (S0551/2023)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Leniency application, settlement and expansion of the internal compliance programme.

Published

6 May 2026

Original amount 38,971,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 May 2026.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Both companies continued to use e-mail addresses and telephone numbers from online purchases for advertising, although data subjects had objected – in some cases after deletion had been confirmed. The Swiss Federal Data Protection and Information Commissioner (Eidgenössischer Datenschutz- und Öffentlichkeitsbeauftragter, EDÖB) ordered the processing for advertising to cease and the data to be deleted on request.

Authority / court

Eidgenössischer Datenschutz- und Öffentlichkeitsbeauftragter (EDÖB)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

DSG Art. 6, Art. 30 Abs. 2 lit. b, Art. 31

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

26 Jun 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In 2021, the Luxembourg data protection authority (CNPD) had imposed 746 million EUR and an order to bring processing into compliance on account of behavioural online advertising; the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal administratif) confirmed this on 18 March 2025. On 12 March 2026, the Administrative Court (Cour administrative) confirmed that legitimate interest was not a sound legal basis and that the information was insufficient, but annulled the fine on the basis of more recent CJEU case law on the requirement of culpability; the CNPD is re-examining the sanction.

Authority / court

Cour administrative (Luxemburg); Verfahren der CNPD

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. f, Art. 12 ff. DSGVO

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

overturned

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Amazon had implemented the compliance order before the hearing.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The nationwide jewellery chain (a dealer in precious metals and stones) received a penalty of 51,562.50 CAD from the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) because written compliance policies were lacking or not applied, the money laundering risk was not assessed and documented, and the prescribed two-yearly effectiveness review was not carried out. Birks has appealed to the Federal Court.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, Part 1, und zugehörige Verordnungen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

5 May 2026

Original amount 51,562.5 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Mar 2026.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Two importers of dog and cat food monitored their retailers’ consumer prices on price comparison portals and asked them to adjust them to their price lists; the retailers complied. In a settlement procedure (Decision 901/2026), the Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission) imposed 387,498 EUR on KOMPA and 95,000 EUR on Happy Dog; the case began with a tip-off via the authority’s anonymous whistleblowing platform.

Authority / court

Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 1 Gesetz 3959/2011; Art. 101 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure with reduced fines

Published

6 Mar 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

During a wave of boycotts in 2024, Loblaw did not process deletion requests in time and retained purchase and usage data from the loyalty programme (more than 17 million members) even after accounts were closed, without demonstrating effective anonymisation. Loblaw undertook to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) to have the anonymisation independently reviewed and to carry out annual deletions.

Authority / court

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

PIPEDA

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

5 Mar 2026

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

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 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The Arnsberg regional government (Bezirksregierung Arnsberg), as anti-money laundering supervisor for the non-financial sector, imposed a fine of 379,503.50 EUR, final since 16 December 2025, on the furniture retailer as a dealer in goods for breach of due diligence obligations under the German Money Laundering Act (Geldwäschegesetz, GwG). Karl-Ernst Hardeck is named as the person responsible for the company.

Authority / court

Bezirksregierung Arnsberg (Geldwäscheaufsicht Nichtfinanzsektor)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

Geldwäschegesetz (Sorgfaltspflichten); Bekanntmachung nach § 57 GwG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Liability of senior managers

The announcement names Karl-Ernst Hardeck as the person responsible for the infringement

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In 2022, clearance of an acquisition in food retail in Martinique was made conditional on the divestiture of a Géant Casino hypermarket by September 2023; Parfait only sold it in September 2025, allowed the value of the assets to deteriorate and obstructed the trustee (decision 25-D-05). Fines: 4.5 million EUR (divestiture), 2.5 million EUR (preservation of value), 600,000 EUR (cooperation).

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Verstoß gegen Zusagen aus Freigabeentscheidung 22-DCC-254 (Fusionskontrolle, Code de commerce)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

3 Nov 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

From November 2021 to August 2024, the retailer (market share 28%) put pressure on economically dependent suppliers: price increases remained unapproved for months, lower prices were demanded in the form of ultimatums and delisting was threatened. The Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) found an unfair trading practice, imposed 1,872,805 EUR and set clear deadlines for negotiations.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Negodīgas tirdzniecības prakses aizlieguma likums (NTPAL)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

5 Nov 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A retail company (name not published) had advertising letters sent via service providers and, in several cases, failed for an extended period to respond in time to the data subject rights that recipients then asserted. The Hamburg Commissioner for Data Protection and Freedom of Information (HmbBfDI) imposed a fine of 195,000 EUR; the measure was published in the interim report of 30 September 2025 (exact date of the decision not stated).

Authority / court

Hamburgischer Beauftragter für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit (HmbBfDI)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

DSGVO (Betroffenenrechte)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

30 Sep 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The rural retail giant inadequately informed consumers and job applicants about their rights, offered no effective means of opting out of the sale and sharing of data (including no Global Privacy Control) and passed data on to third parties without the required contracts. An officer must certify compliance annually for four years, as required by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).

Authority / court

California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

30 Sep 2025

Original amount 1,350,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Sep 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The furniture retailer had stored data of around 385,000 customers in a legacy system without retention periods. The district court had imposed 100,000 DKK; following a referral to the CJEU on whether the fine is to be calculated on the basis of the turnover of the entire group, the High Court increased the fine to 1.5 million DKK.

Authority / court

Vestre Landsret (auf Anzeige der Datatilsynet)

Area of law

Data protection

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. e, Art. 83

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 1,500,000 DKK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Sep 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

On shein.com, advertising cookies were placed without consent as soon as the site was accessed; in addition to an incomplete cookie banner, there was an advertising pop-up without an option to reject. After clicking ‘Reject all’ or withdrawing consent, cookies continued to be read. The Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (French data protection authority, CNIL) imposed 150 million EUR.

Authority / court

Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), formation restreinte

Area of law

Data protection · Cookies and tracking

Legal basis

Art. 82 Loi Informatique et Libertés (Umsetzung von Art. 5 Abs. 3 ePrivacy-Richtlinie)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Italy's competition and consumer protection authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, AGCM) objected to vague and in part false claims about circular design and recyclability, about the ‘green’ evoluSHEIN collection (only a small share of the range) and about emission targets, while emissions rose in 2023/2024. The ultra-fast-fashion model is subject to a heightened duty of care, the authority held; it imposed 1 million EUR (case PS12709).

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims

Legal basis

Codice del Consumo (unlautere Geschäftspraktiken), Verfahren PS12709

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

4 Aug 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The Saxony State Directorate (Landesdirektion Sachsen), as anti-money laundering supervisor for the non-financial sector, imposed a fine of 7,000 EUR on an art dealer, announced in anonymised form, for breaches of the due diligence obligations and risk management requirements under the German Money Laundering Act (GwG). The authority had previously issued several orders on risk management in the art trade, backed by the threat of penalty payments.

Authority / court

Landesdirektion Sachsen (Geldwäscheaufsicht Nichtfinanzsektor)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

Geldwäschegesetz (Sorgfaltspflichten, Risikomanagement); Bekanntmachung nach § 57 GwG

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The European Commission declared binding commitments by AliExpress relating, among other things, to the detection of illegal products such as medicines and food supplements (including via hidden links and affiliate programmes), the notice and complaint system, the transparency of advertising and recommender systems, the traceability of traders and data access for researchers; an independent monitoring trustee oversees implementation. In parallel, it made a preliminary finding of a breach of the obligation to carry out a risk assessment.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations

Legal basis

Art. 71 Digital Services Act (Verordnung (EU) 2022/2065)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In connection with the change of control at the fashion group SMCP in 2021/22, the major shareholder European TopSoho (ETS) and Dynamic Treasure Group failed to make threshold notifications; ETS also disseminated a misleading press release. SMCP itself failed to maintain the confidentiality of inside information. Sanctions imposed by the Enforcement Committee of France's financial markets authority (Autorité des marchés financiers, AMF): Chenran Qiu 1 million EUR, ETS 400,000 EUR, DTG 300,000 EUR, SMCP 20,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Autorité des marchés financiers (AMF), Commission des sanctions

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Market abuse and insider dealing

Legal basis

Art. L. 233-7 Code de commerce; Art. 223-14 RG AMF; Art. 12 Abs. 1 lit. c MAR; Art. 2 Abs. 1 DVO (EU) 2016/1055

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Liability of senior managers

Chenran Qiu: 1,000,000 EUR (ETS's infringements attributed to her)

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

From July 2018 to July 2022, Delivery Hero and Glovo agreed a mutual no-poach arrangement, exchanged commercially sensitive information and allocated national markets; this was facilitated by Delivery Hero's minority stake in Glovo. Fines: Delivery Hero 223.285 million EUR, Glovo 105.732 million EUR (settlement procedure, 10 % reduction).

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 AEUV, Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure (10 % reduction)

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The company behind the Kruidvat drugstore chain tracked visitors to Kruidvat.nl with tracking cookies without their knowledge or consent, enabling it to build profiles from location, pages visited, shopping basket and purchases. The Dutch data protection authority (Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens, AP) had imposed 600,000 EUR in 2024, upheld the objection in May 2025 and reduced the fine to 50,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Persoonsgegevens (AP)

Area of law

Data protection · Cookies and tracking

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a DSGVO (Tracking-Cookies ohne Einwilligung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

12 Jun 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Following a preliminary investigation into rising food prices, the Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found that Kaufland had demanded and received payments from five suppliers for ‘marketing services’ and for ‘optimisation of goods flows’ and logistics that were not fully connected with the sale of their products. For the two prohibited trading practices (Art. 37b(1)(4) ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act) it imposed 250,000 leva each, a total of 500,000 leva. An appeal has been lodged against the decision.

Authority / court

Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 37b Abs. 1 Nr. 4 ZZK (verbotene Handelspraktiken in der Lebensmittelkette, UTP-Richtlinie)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 500,000 BGN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 May 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Since at least 2015, Sennheiser coordinated consumer prices for premium headphones with dealers, monitored them using price comparison services and specialist software and intervened when prices were too low; Sonova continued this after acquiring the business unit in March 2022 until September 2022. The employees had received competition law training but used this knowledge to conceal their conduct (code language). The Bundeskartellamt imposed fines of almost 6 million EUR on both companies and three responsible employees (settlement).

Authority / court

Bundeskartellamt

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

§ 1 GWB (vertikale Preisbindung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Extensive cooperation and settlement

Liability of senior managers

Fines imposed on three responsible employees (not named)

Published

7 May 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

For 40 days, the fashion retailer’s misconfigured privacy portal did not process objections to the sale and sharing of personal data; in addition, the company required too much data and identity verification before an opt-out. The California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA) imposed 345,178 USD and required correct configuration of consent management and employee training.

Authority / court

California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA), Board

Area of law

Data protection · Cookies and tracking

Legal basis

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 345,178 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 May 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Although the platform operator had repeatedly confirmed to a customer that his e-mail addresses had been deleted, he continued to receive feedback requests; in addition, certain partners could see the address. The Romanian data protection authority (ANSPDCP) found breaches of transparency and erasure obligations, imposed 49,770 lei (10,000 EUR) and ordered, among other things, training of the staff responsible.

Authority / court

Autoritatea Națională de Supraveghere a Prelucrării Datelor cu Caracter Personal (ANSPDCP)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 12 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 17 und 19 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

24 Apr 2025

Original amount 49,770 RON, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Apr 2025.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

As part of a preventive review of the privacy policy on zoopasaule.lv, the Datu valsts inspekcija (Latvian Data State Inspectorate, DVI) repeatedly asked the online pet retailer for information from July 2024 onwards. The company let the first deadlines lapse, later twice asked for an extension citing the absence of its programmer, and still did not deliver thereafter. The DVI imposed 500 EUR for failure to cooperate with the supervisory authority.

Authority / court

Datu valsts inspekcija (DVI)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 58 Abs. 1 lit. d und e, Art. 83 Abs. 5 lit. e DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A food retail group anonymised in the decision (R*) had, through its subsidiary, implemented a notifiable concentration without merger control clearance by means of a long-term lease of store space in a shopping centre (1 July 2018 to 20 September 2022). The Cartel Court (Kartellgericht) imposed a fine of 1.5 million EUR; Austria's Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) upheld the appeals of the Federal Competition Authority (Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, BWB) and the Federal Cartel Prosecutor (Bundeskartellanwalt) and set the fine at 70 million EUR, taking into account the group turnover of 92.3 billion EUR and an earlier fine for prohibited implementation.

Authority / court

Oberster Gerichtshof als Kartellobergericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

§ 29 Z 1 lit a iVm § 17 Abs 1 KartG 2005

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Repeat case

yes

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

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 (VJ/51/2022)

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 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In 2022, a retail company (name pseudonymised) used nine cameras in one branch to film, among other things, the self-service checkouts including the keypad of the card payment terminal, as well as public areas, bus stops and neighbouring properties. The Austrian data protection authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 1.5 million EUR for lack of a legal basis and infringement of data minimisation; the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) confirmed the amount on 25 July 2025, and an appeal on points of law is pending.

Authority / court

Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)

Area of law

Data protection · Video surveillance

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und c, Art. 6 Abs. 1 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Amazon did not inform employees at two warehouses in Moreno Valley and Redlands in writing of the productivity quotas that applied; the authority regarded the peer-to-peer rating system used as a quota within the meaning of the law, which prohibits quotas that prevent breaks, toilet visits or compliance with health and safety. For 59,017 violations between October 2023 and March 2024, the Labor Commissioner’s Office imposed 5,901,700 USD.

Authority / court

California Labor Commissioner's Office (Division of Labor Standards Enforcement)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Working time

Legal basis

California Warehouse Quotas Law (AB 701, Labor Code §§ 2100 ff.); Labor Code § 2699(f)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Original amount 5,901,700 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Jun 2024.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The exclusive distributor of several lighting brands asked retailers by e-mail to align their prices with its ‘recommendations’ and threatened to stop supplies otherwise. It also exchanged information about projects with competing retailers and refused orders for projects planned by others. The Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) imposed 34,490.26 EUR.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 11 Konkurences likums (verbotene Vereinbarungen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation with the Competition Council regarding the resale price maintenance (10% fine reduction for this infringement).

Published

13 Jun 2024

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

As operator, the company placed furniture made of Vietnamese rubberwood from Malaysia on the market without exercising due diligence to reduce the risk of illegally harvested timber in the supply chain to a negligible level. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) issued a Notice of Remedial Action under Regulation 11 of the Timber Regulations 2013.

Authority / court

Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), Department for Business and Trade

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Supply chain due diligence

Legal basis

Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(b) (Sorgfaltspflicht nach Verordnung (EU) Nr. 995/2010 in der im UK fortgeltenden Fassung)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

As operator, the company placed wooden furniture from Vietnam on the market without exercising due diligence to reduce the risk of illegally harvested timber in the supply chain to a negligible level. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) issued a Notice of Remedial Action under Regulation 11 of the Timber Regulations 2013.

Authority / court

Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), Department for Business and Trade

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Supply chain due diligence

Legal basis

Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(b) (Sorgfaltspflicht nach Verordnung (EU) Nr. 995/2010 in der im UK fortgeltenden Fassung)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

In April 2024, the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) seized furniture from the Vilto, Molger, Bekväm, Norbo and other ranges because IKEA Supply AG, as operator, could not demonstrate due diligence that sufficiently mitigated the risk of illegal timber. Following a second notice dated 30 May 2024, the company had to donate the goods to a named charity.

Authority / court

Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), Department for Business and Trade

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Supply chain due diligence

Legal basis

Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(a), Regulation 9 (Beschlagnahme)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

As operator, the company placed furniture from Vietnam on the market without exercising due diligence to reduce the risk of illegally harvested timber in the supply chain to a negligible level. The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) issued a Notice of Remedial Action under Regulation 11 of the Timber Regulations 2013.

Authority / court

Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS), Department for Business and Trade

Area of law

Supply chain and human rights · Supply chain due diligence

Legal basis

Timber and Timber Products (Placing on the Market) Regulations 2013, Regulation 4(b) (Sorgfaltspflicht nach Verordnung (EU) Nr. 995/2010 in der im UK fortgeltenden Fassung)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The ACM imposed fines totalling 621,000 EUR on five online retailers because they did not base discounts on the lowest price of the previous 30 days and artificially raised initial prices. The furniture and home furnishings retailer Leen Bakker received a fine of 130,000 EUR and did not acknowledge the infringement.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Preisangabenregeln zur Preisermäßigung (Umsetzung Omnibus-Richtlinie, seit 1.1.2023)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

11 Jun 2024

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Following an investigation into their fashion environmental claims, the three retailers gave formal undertakings to the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA): no vague terms such as ‘eco’ or ‘responsible’, clear information on recycled and organic content, transparent criteria for green ranges, correct filters and information on labels, and regular reports to the CMA. No breach of law was established.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims

Legal basis

Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (förmliche Verpflichtungszusagen)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

27 Mar 2024

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

From the end of 2012 at the latest until autumn 2021, Electrolux enforced minimum resale prices for appliances of the Electrolux, AEG and Zanussi brands, monitored prices via comparison portals and restricted resales. In a settlement procedure, the Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (Czech Office for the Protection of Competition, ÚOHS) imposed 125.404 million CZK, the highest fine for vertical price fixing to date.

Authority / court

Úřad pro ochranu hospodářské soutěže (ÚOHS)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Tschechisches Wettbewerbsgesetz, Art. 101 AEUV (S0187/2023)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Voluntary termination, above-average cooperation, expansion of the compliance programme, settlement.

Published

13 Feb 2024

Original amount 125,404,000 CZK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Feb 2024.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

Warehouse and sales staff were not paid for all hours worked, received overtime premiums only after 40 hours a week instead of after eight hours a day, and had to remain available to customers during rest and meal breaks. Following citations issued in 2021, the California Labor Commissioner’s Office agreed a settlement of 1 million USD for 107 employees.

Authority / court

California Labor Commissioner's Office (Division of Labor Standards Enforcement)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Working time

Legal basis

California Labor Code (Daily Overtime, Meal and Rest Periods, Mindestlohn)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 1,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Feb 2024.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

According to the U.S. Federal Trade Commission (FTC), the pharmacy chain used AI facial recognition in hundreds of stores from 2012 to 2020, which falsely flagged customers – particularly women and people of colour – as shoplifters; accuracy was neither tested in advance nor monitored, and employees were not adequately trained. Under the proposed settlement order (subject to approval by the bankruptcy court and the federal court), Rite Aid may not use the technology for surveillance for five years and must delete images and algorithms developed from them; in addition, the FTC alleges a violation of its 2010 data security order.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission

Area of law

AI and digital regulation · AI systems

Legal basis

FTC Act Section 5; Verstoß gegen FTC-Datensicherheitsanordnung von 2010

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Repeat case

yes

Published

19 Dec 2023

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

A 35-year-old forklift driver died at the Newark site when his counterbalance forklift truck overturned after striking a kerb; he was not wearing a seatbelt and was trapped under the overhead guard. The company had not enforced the requirement to wear seatbelts and had not adequately assessed its forklift operations. Fine of £500,000 plus costs.

Authority / court

Nottingham Magistrates' Court (Anklage: Health and Safety Executive)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Workplace safety and accidents

Legal basis

Section 2(1) Health and Safety at Work etc. Act 1974

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

8 Nov 2023

Original amount 500,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Nov 2023.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The company of a Russian-Dutch national from Gorssel sold microchips, semiconductors and other electronics to a Russian purchasing organisation with an FSB licence and to customers from the defence industry, and after the tightening of sanctions in 2022 routed shipments ostensibly via the Maldives and other countries. Following charges brought by the Dutch Public Prosecution Service (Openbaar Ministerie, OM), the Rotterdam District Court (Rechtbank Rotterdam) imposed a fine of 200,000 EUR on the BV (final after the appeals were withdrawn) and 18 months' imprisonment on the managing director (appeal proceedings pending).

Authority / court

Rechtbank Rotterdam; Anklage Openbaar Ministerie

Area of law

Sanctions and export control · Export control and dual-use goods

Legal basis

Sanctiewet 1977 (EU-Russland-Sanktionen); Urkundenfälschung (valsheid in geschrifte)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

Managing director sentenced at first instance to 18 months' imprisonment; in the appeal proceedings, the OM demanded three years and a professional ban.

Published

14 Apr 2025

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report

The furniture retail group advertised inflated regular prices and discounts derived from them, as well as countdown timers, even though the promotions were extended or replaced. It is paying a penalty of 3.25 million CAD and 100,000 CAD in costs and has committed to a compliance programme.

Authority / court

Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Competition Act (false or misleading representations; ordinary selling price)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Resolution by agreement with a compliance programme.

Published

27 Sep 2023

Original amount 3,250,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 27 Sep 2023.

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

Report an error

Website What is wrong? Please include evidence if possible.

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Send report