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 a Senior Vice President and a Vice President.

Published

25 Sep 2025

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

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

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

Empire Company Limited, parent company of grocery banners such as Sobeys, Farm Boy, Safeway, IGA, Foodland, FreshCo, Marché Bonichoix and Les Marchés Tradition, reached an agreement with the Competition Bureau on its use of property controls in the Canadian grocery sector. The Commissioner of Competition filed it with the Competition Tribunal as a registered consent agreement on 22 September 2026. In June 2026 the Bureau had obtained court orders to advance its investigation into these property controls.

Authority / court

Competition Bureau Canada (Consent Agreement, registriert beim Competition Tribunal)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Competition Act; beim Competition Tribunal registriertes Consent Agreement (Paragraf in den zugänglichen Quellen nicht genannt)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

22 Sep 2026

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

The nationwide wine and spirits distributor headquartered in Florida entered into a non-prosecution agreement and pays USD 12.5 million. It admitted that executives and employees had for years provided employees of alcohol retailers, including grocery chains in California, with cash, prepaid gift cards, flights, golf trips, resort stays and luxury goods to influence the purchase and placement of its products, concealing this through third-party vendors and false invoices. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

U.S. Attorney's Office, Northern District of California (U.S. Department of Justice)

Area of law

Bribery and corruption · Commercial bribery

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Liability of senior managers

According to the announcement, several California-based executives, including vice presidents, were directly involved.

Published

10 Sep 2026

Original amount 12,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Sep 2026.

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

In the 24th naming round of the National Minimum Wage scheme, B&Q was listed first: the company had underpaid 4,530 workers by a total of £456,934.72 (period according to the list: 15 May 2020 to 31 March 2025). Named employers had to pay the arrears and additionally received penalties whose amount per employer is not published (around £7m for the whole round). The amount is the arrears ordered to be repaid, not a fine.

Authority / court

Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade / Fair Work Agency (Ermittlung: HM Revenue and Customs)

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Minimum wage and undeclared work

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

3 Sep 2026

Original amount 456,934.72 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Sep 2026.

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

Using credentials stolen elsewhere, attackers logged in en masse on the websites of GS SHOP (June 2024 to February 2025) and GS25 (December 2024 to January 2025) and obtained data on 1,581,025 and 79,128 people respectively; GS Retail Co., Ltd. detected neither the bursts of login attempts from the same IP addresses nor the rising number of failed attempts, and after the first discovery at GS25 did not stop the parallel attack on GS SHOP. The authority also found an inadequate data protection organisation and that 1,599 further people were notified more than 72 hours late, imposed a penalty surcharge of 12,836,000,000 KRW and an administrative fine of 3,000,000 KRW (12,839,000,000 KRW in total) and ordered detection measures and a review of the data protection organisation.

Authority / court

Personal Information Protection Commission (PIPC, 개인정보보호위원회)

Area of law

Data protection · Data breaches and data security

Legal basis

Personal Information Protection Act (개인정보 보호법) Art. 29, Art. 34(1); Sanktion nach Art. 64-2(1) Nr. 9

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction of 30% because no benefit was derived and 40% for cooperation, remediation and protective efforts (ISMS-P certification, self-regulation, privacy impact assessment); increase of 50% because the infringement lasted more than two years.

Liability of senior managers

The company was ordered to deploy dedicated data protection staff and to define the powers and responsibility of its chief privacy officer (CPO) clearly.

Published

31 Aug 2026

Original amount 12,839,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Aug 2026.

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

In 2021, the operators of the online retailer eMAG had committed to a support programme for Hungarian businesses, but once again implemented it only partially and not with the prescribed content. In the follow-up review, the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH) imposed 225 million HUF; in total, the operators have already received fines of 710 million HUF.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

Nachprüfungsverfahren zu verbindlichen Zusagen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

The companies acknowledged the failures and waived legal remedies.

Published

13 Aug 2026

Original amount 225,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Aug 2026.

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

Datatilsynet (Norwegian Data Protection Authority) fined the online dietary supplement retailer Lab Pharma AS NOK 205,000 for breaching its duty to cooperate with the supervisory authority (Art. 31 GDPR): the company had threatened case handlers with police reports and lawsuits in order to end the investigation of a complaint, and submitted requested documents late. The authority also ordered the company to delete the name and images of a former advertising partner (an influencer) from all its websites and to stop using her data for marketing until it can demonstrate a legal basis, as the underlying contract had already expired in March 2017.

Authority / court

Datatilsynet

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 31, Art. 58 Abs. 2 lit. f, g und i, Art. 83 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Liability of senior managers

Datatilsynet attributed the intentional conduct of the company's management to the company.

Published

17 Aug 2026

Original amount 205,000 NOK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 12 Aug 2026.

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

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

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 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

The company behind The TV Shop had its own staff post positive product reviews without disclosing the connection, and published one- to three-star reviews only if customers responded to a follow-up email. It also gave customers the impression that they had no rights under the Consumer Guarantees Act beyond a 30-day money-back guarantee, and advertised an accessory pack for the Air Roaster Pro as “free” although it was always included. After a guilty verdict on 13 charges, the District Court imposed 1,104,000 NZD on 6 August 2026; the company had already been fined in 2015 (153,000 NZD) and 2022 (123,500 NZD).

Authority / court

District Court (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, ss 10, 13(e), 13(i), 40(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Repeat case

yes

Liability of senior managers

According to the sentencing decision, managers and executives knew about the review practices and at times directed them themselves.

Published

11 Aug 2026

Original amount 1,104,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Aug 2026.

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

The ICO fined Elderly Aids Limited, a seller of call-blocking devices, £190,000 and also issued an enforcement notice. The ICO found that the company had made 758,053 unsolicited direct marketing calls to numbers registered with the TPS/CTPS whose subscribers had not agreed to such calls, leading to 20 complaints. The legal basis is regulations 21 and 24 of PECR. Under the notice, payment by 7 September 2026 reduces the amount by 20% to £152,000.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulations 21 und 24 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998 (Geldbuße), section 40 DPA 1998 (Anordnung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 190,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Aug 2026.

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

According to the Attorney General's office, the company sold an annual shipping subscription ("Celebrations Passport") whose terms between February 2021 and June 2022 appeared only in small print, in linked terms or in pop-up boxes; a post-purchase acknowledgement and a notice before automatic renewal were missing. In the Assurance of Discontinuance it undertakes to pay 375,000 USD in penalties, fees and costs, to refund subscribers and to change its subscription processes. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Office of the New York State Attorney General

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

New York General Business Law §§ 349, 527-a; Executive Law § 63(12); Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (15 U.S.C. § 8403)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

22 Jul 2026

Original amount 375,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 21 Jul 2026.

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

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

The packaging supplier allegedly imported plastic carrier bags made in China via Hong Kong and declared them as goods from Hong Kong in order to evade anti-dumping duties of up to 77.57%. According to the US Department of Justice (DOJ), the company had employees cover up “Made in China” markings, concealed the origin from its customs broker and cancelled orders that were due to be inspected; the settlement of 7.3 million USD (a joint payment with a further settling party) resolves a whistleblower lawsuit.

Authority / court

U.S. Department of Justice, Civil Division, und U.S. Attorney’s Office District of New Jersey

Area of law

Sanctions and export control · Customs

Legal basis

False Claims Act, 31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 ff. (Vergleich; Haftung nicht festgestellt)

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Liability of senior managers

Measures against individuals are not reported here.

Published

15 Jul 2026

Original amount 7,300,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jul 2026.

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

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

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

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

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

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