Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa: 2,207 cases from 44 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by countryWhat for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
- Competition law €119.9m 98 % · 5 cases
- Data protection €2.42m 2 % · 5 cases
- Money laundering and terrorist financing €386,504 0 % · 2 cases
- Capital markets and financial supervision €112,000 0 % · 1 case
- Environment and sustainability – 0 % · 2 cases
- Health and safety and employment law – 0 % · 1 case
- Consumer protection and online retail – 0 % · 1 case
Who?
by company- Markant Handels- und Industriewaren-Vermittlungs AG und 16 Händlerinnen (in der Quelle nicht namentlich genannt) €29.9m 59 % · 1 case
- Anonymised companies €20.8m 41 % · 6 cases
- Hardeck Möbel GmbH & Co. KG €379,504 1 % · 1 case
- Adidas (Sportartikelhersteller) – 0 % · 1 case
- Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon EU S.à r.l. – 0 % · 1 case
- Cream della Cream Switzerland GmbH und Philipp Plein International AG – 0 % · 1 case
- Sennheiser electronic SE & Co. KG, Sonova Consumer Hearing Sales Germany GmbH – 0 % · 1 case
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 2 | €20.5m |
| 2023 | 3 | €112,000 |
| 2024 | 2 | €1.7m |
| 2025 | 8 | €100.5m |
| 2026 | 2 | – |
17 cases
17 Apr 2026 Cream della Cream Switzerland GmbH und Philipp Plein International AGFDPIC ruling: Philipp Plein and Cream della Cream ignored objections to advertising Order
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.
An objection to advertising must take effect across all systems – a confirmed deletion followed by further advertising violates the principle of good faith.
Handling objections to advertising and deletion requests
- 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
- Verfügung des EDÖB gegen Cream della Cream Switzerland GmbH und Philipp Plein International AG Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
4 Feb 2026 Amazon.com, Inc., Amazon EU S.à r.l.Bundeskartellamt bans Amazon price controls and orders disgorgement of around 59 million EUR Disgorgement of profits
The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) prohibited Amazon from steering third-party sellers' prices on amazon.de through price control mechanisms that deactivate offers deemed too expensive or exclude them from the 'Buy Box'; such mechanisms are now only permitted exceptionally, for instance in cases of price gouging, with transparent rules and notifications. At the same time, for the first time since the 2023 reform, the authority ordered disgorgement of economic benefits: for the period from 7 November 2023 to 31 December 2024 Amazon must pay around 58.8 million EUR (press release: around 59 million EUR; the exact amount is redacted in the public version).
A platform operator that also sells on its platform must not steer sellers' prices through visibility sanctions and risks having the resulting benefits disgorged.
Platform operators interfering in sellers' pricing
- Authority / court
- Bundeskartellamt
- Area of law
- Competition law · Abuse of market power
- Legal basis
- § 19a Abs. 2 S. 1 Nr. 2 GWB, § 19 Abs. 1, Abs. 2 Nr. 1 GWB, Art. 102 AEUV; Vorteilsabschöpfung nach § 34 Abs. 1 GWB (Az. B2-73/20)
- Action
- Disgorgement of profits
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Culpability
- intentional
- Published
- 5 Feb 2026
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Dec 2025 Hardeck Möbel GmbH & Co. KGFurniture retailer Hardeck: 379,503 EUR fine for breach of AML due diligence obligations €379,504
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).
Furniture retailers, as dealers in goods, are also obliged entities under the GwG – breaches of due diligence obligations can trigger six-figure fines.
Identification for cash payments in the trade in goods
- 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
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Bekanntmachung nach § 57 GwG – Bezirksregierung Arnsberg Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Oct 2025 BGH: price reduction only permissible with a clearly legible 30-day lowest price Order
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).
In all discount advertising, state the 30-day lowest price as clearly as the discount itself.
Price information in discount advertising (30-day lowest price)
- 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
- Unzulässige Werbung mit einer Preisermäßigung (Nr. 184/2025) Court press release
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Sep 2025 HmbBfDI: 195,000 EUR against retailer over ignored data subject requests €195,000
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).
Companies that send advertising must have a working process for access and objection requests – even if the mailing is outsourced.
Timely handling of access requests
- 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
- Zwischenbilanz 2025: HmbBfDI verhängt Bußgelder von insgesamt 775.000 Euro Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Jul 2025 Markant Handels- und Industriewaren-Vermittlungs AG und 16 Händlerinnen (in der Quelle nicht namentlich genannt)WEKO fines 16 retailers in the Markant buying cooperation around CHF 28 million €29.9m
The Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO, Swiss Competition Commission) found discounts negotiated jointly through the Markant cooperation to be lawful, but not opaque rebates: suppliers had to buy an ever more expensive service package from Markant, part of whose fees Markant passed on undisclosed to 16 retailers, and suppliers who refused faced collective countermeasures up to delisting. WEKO classed this as an unlawful purchasing-side price agreement and fined the 16 retailers a total of around CHF 28 million. The decision can be appealed to the Federal Administrative Court.
Buying cooperations may pool negotiating power, but payments to members must be disclosed to suppliers and must not be enforced through collective pressure.
Buying cooperations in retail: limits of joint negotiating power
- Authority / court
- Wettbewerbskommission (WEKO)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Kartellgesetz (KG): unzulässige einkaufsseitige Preisabrede
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 8 Jul 2025
Original amount 28,000,000 CHF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 8 Jul 2025.
- WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 08.07.2025: WEKO schafft Praxis zu Einkaufskooperationen Press release of an authority
- Newsroom-Schnittstelle der Bundesverwaltung: Volltext der WEKO-Medienmitteilung vom 08.07.2025 (weko_5848) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
20 Jun 2025 Saxony: 7,000 EUR fine against art dealer over due diligence obligations and risk management €7,000
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.
Art dealers need a written risk analysis and must identify buyers for transactions of 10,000 EUR or more.
AML obligations in the art trade
- 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
- Bekanntmachungen gemäß § 57 GwG – Landesdirektion Sachsen (lfd. Nr. 36) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
7 May 2025 Sennheiser electronic SE & Co. KG, Sonova Consumer Hearing Sales Germany GmbHBundeskartellamt: fines against Sennheiser and Sonova over resale price maintenance Fine
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). In a settlement procedure, the Bundeskartellamt imposed fines on both companies; the decisions are final.
Price monitoring software is no licence: anyone who responds to deviations by putting pressure on dealers is engaging in prohibited resale price maintenance.
Price discussions with dealers and price monitoring
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- 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
- Published
- 7 May 2025
- Bundeskartellamt verhängt Bußgelder gegen Audioprodukte-Hersteller Sennheiser und Sonova Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
25 Mar 2025 Adidas (Sportartikelhersteller)Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court: Adidas may not claim 'climate neutral by 2050' without explanation Other
On an action by a consumer association, the Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth (Nuremberg-Fürth Regional Court) ordered Adidas to cease the former statement 'By 2050 we will be climate neutral' on its corporate website and to reimburse warning costs. The statement created the impression that the goal would be reached solely through the company's own emission reductions, although green electricity certificates were also to be used; a reference only in the linked annual report was not sufficient. According to the court's press release of 26 March 2025, the judgment was not final; whether an appeal was lodged is not known here.
Climate targets on a corporate website also count as advertising and must disclose there what role offsetting plays.
Climate targets on the corporate website as advertising
- Authority / court
- Landgericht Nürnberg-Fürth
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- UWG (irreführende Werbung); Az. 3 HK O 6524/24
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 26 Mar 2025
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
28 Jan 2025 OGH raises gun-jumping fine against food retailer from 1.5 to 70 million EUR €70m
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.
Taking over stores by way of a lease or tenancy agreement can also be a notifiable concentration – expansion departments must check merger control requirements.
Notification requirement for site takeovers through leases or tenancy agreements
- 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
- OGH 16 Ok 5/24g vom 28.01.2025 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Aug 2024 DSB: 1.5 million EUR against retail chain over cameras on self-checkouts, PIN pad and surroundings €1.5m
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.
Align cameras in retail closely with their protective purpose – PIN entries, public spaces and neighbouring properties must not be in the frame.
- 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
- RIS, Entscheidungen der Datenschutzbehörde (Suche) (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 16 Aug 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
20 Jun 2024 a German business that commissioned sales calls for food supplementsBNetzA: €200,000 fine on business that commissioned sales calls for food supplements €200,000
The Bundesnetzagentur (Federal Network Agency) fined a business that had commissioned sales calls for food supplements 200,000 EUR for unlawful telephone advertising. The official list states only the role, the product advertised and the amount.
Even a business that merely commissions sales calls can itself be fined – consent of the people called should be checked before a campaign starts.
Consent and proof of consent for telephone marketing
- Authority / court
- Bundesnetzagentur (BNetzA)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Marketing and consent
- Legal basis
- UWG – Verbot unerlaubter Telefonwerbung gegenüber Verbraucherinnen und Verbrauchern
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Bundesnetzagentur, Maßnahmen gegen unerlaubte Telefonwerbung mit Archiv-Übersicht der Bußgelder ab 2017 (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 7 Oct 2026 · Version 2 · Company name anonymised since 20 Jun 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 Sep 2023 a German outdoor retailerHamburg: order to record working time against outdoor retailer upheld by court Order
Following an anonymous complaint about Sunday work and overlong working days, the Hamburg Amt für Arbeitsschutz (Office for Occupational Safety) ordered one of Europe's largest outdoor retailers on 22 September 2023 to record the actual working hours of all employees, including those on trust-based working time, with start, end and duration, and to submit records. On 21 August 2024 the Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg (Hamburg Administrative Court) largely dismissed the action, finding § 22(3) sentence 1 no. 1 ArbSchG (German Occupational Safety and Health Act) a sufficient legal basis; only part of one item had become moot.
Trust-based working time does not exempt from time recording; occupational safety authorities can enforce it by order without waiting for new legislation.
Duty to record working time even under trust-based working time
- Authority / court
- Amt für Arbeitsschutz Hamburg (Behörde für Justiz und Verbraucherschutz); bestätigt durch Verwaltungsgericht Hamburg, Kammer 15
- Area of law
- Health and safety and employment law · Working time
- Legal basis
- § 22 Abs. 3 Satz 1 Nr. 1 ArbSchG i. V. m. § 3 Abs. 2 Nr. 1 ArbSchG (Aufzeichnungsanordnung); § 17 Abs. 4 ArbZG (Vorlage von Arbeitszeitaufzeichnungen)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 21 Aug 2024
- VG Hamburg, Urteil vom 21.08.2024, 15 K 964/24 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 22 Sep 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Jul 2023 a German drugstore chainKarlsruhe court bans drugstore chain's 'climate/environmentally neutral' claims Order
On an action by Deutsche Umwelthilfe, the Landgericht Karlsruhe (Karlsruhe Regional Court) ordered a German drugstore chain to stop advertising liquid soap, sun lotion and shower cream on the packaging as 'climate neutral' and a washing-up liquid as an 'environmentally neutral product'. In the court's view, the packaging of two of the products lacked essential information on the term; moreover, CO2 offsetting via, among other things, a time-limited forest protection project could in principle not deliver the promised lasting climate neutrality.
Anyone advertising climate neutrality through offsetting must explain on the packaging itself what is offset and must not promise a permanent effect that time-limited projects cannot deliver.
Climate-neutral claims based on CO2 offsetting
- Authority / court
- Landgericht Karlsruhe, Kammer für Handelssachen
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- § 5 Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 2 Nr. 1 UWG; § 5a Abs. 1 UWG
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 26 Jul 2023
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 26 Jul 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
12 Jul 2023 a German fashion groupFashion group: notice on the 2021 annual financial report published too late €112,000
The fashion group had not announced in time from when and at which internet address the 2021 annual financial report was publicly available. The fine notice is final.
Enter recurring disclosure obligations such as the notice announcement in the financial calendar with a deadline and a responsible person.
- Authority / court
- Bundesanstalt für Finanzdienstleistungsaufsicht (BaFin)
- Area of law
- Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- § 114 Abs. 1 Satz 2 WpHG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Published
- 25 Jul 2023
- BaFin, Maßnahmen und Sanktionen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 12 Jul 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
11 Nov 2022 a German drugstore chainDüsseldorf Higher Regional Court: 20 million EUR fine on drugstore chain in coffee cartel €20m
The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) fined a drugstore chain 20 million EUR for its part in the so-called coffee cartel – coordination between a coffee roaster and retailers on retail prices, mainly for filter coffee, between 2004 and 2008. The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) had imposed 5.25 million EUR at the end of 2015; a first court judgment of 30 million EUR (2018) and a later judgment dismissing the objection were both set aside by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice), so that only the third trial, following a negotiated agreement, led to a judgment.
A retailer without a leading role is still liable as a cartel participant if it coordinates retail prices with a supplier.
Price coordination between manufacturer and retailer
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 1. Kartellsenat (Urteil nach Einspruch gegen Bußgeldbescheid des Bundeskartellamts)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Vorsätzliche Kartellordnungswidrigkeit; Az. V 1 Kart 1/22 (OWi)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Culpability
- intentional
- Mitigating circumstances
- Proceedings lasting more than twelve years, the objection being limited to the penalty after a negotiated agreement, no leading role in the cartel and comparatively small market significance in coffee sales.
- Published
- 14 Nov 2022
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 11 Nov 2024 · Direct link
Report an error
20 Sep 2022 a German e-commerce group subsidiaryBlnBDI: €525,000 over conflict of interest of a group company's data protection officer €525,000
The Berlin data protection authority fined the subsidiary of a Berlin retail group 525,000 EUR because its in-house data protection officer also managed two group service companies that processed personal data on the subsidiary's behalf, and would therefore have been supervising his own companies' work. Despite a reprimand issued in 2021, the company kept him in the role for almost a year; cooperation and ending the infringement during the proceedings were taken into account in mitigation.
A group data protection officer must not hold a management role at affiliated service providers he or she is meant to supervise.
Independence and conflicts of interest of the data protection officer
- Authority / court
- Berliner Beauftragte für Datenschutz und Informationsfreiheit (BlnBDI)
- Area of law
- Data protection
- Legal basis
- Art. 38 Abs. 6 Satz 2 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- yes
- Mitigating circumstances
- Extensive cooperation with the supervisory authority; the infringement was ended while the fine proceedings were still running.
- Published
- 20 Sep 2022
- BlnBDI, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2022) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 20 Sep 2024 · Direct link