Who was sanctioned, and for what?

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

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

Using its new powers under the DMCCA 2024, the CMA found that the electrical retailer had pre-selected and charged customers on its website for paid extra services (removal of the old appliance, packaging disposal) without their express consent during the period examined, April to November 2025. It imposed a fine of GBP 720,000 (GBP 1,200,000 before a 40% settlement discount) and required the company to refund the amounts charged in this way to affected customers (around GBP 600,000 according to the CMA).

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Regulation 40 Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013; Chapter 4 Part 3 Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

40% discount for admission and settlement (including waiver of appeal); the practice was stopped on the day the investigation was opened.

Published

18 Jun 2026

Original amount 720,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 15 Jun 2026.

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

On a claim brought by the CMA, the High Court made a consent order in which the Emma companies accepted that they had used misleading countdown timers, inaccurate high-demand messages and misleading discount claims. They gave undertakings to the court that are enforceable and must put compliance measures in place with reporting to the CMA; the dispute over was/now reference pricing was tried separately, and in its judgment of 30 July 2026 the court found only the admitted infringements.

Authority / court

High Court of Justice, Business and Property Courts (Klägerin: Competition and Markets Authority)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

section 217 Enterprise Act 2002 (Enforcement order wegen Schedule 13 Infringements)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

28 May 2026

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

At Herringswell sawmill in 2024 a labourer was crushed by a pack of timber weighing around three tonnes after a colleague started the conveyor without seeing him inside the conveyor framework. The company knew that workers were entering the danger zone – CCTV showed 19 occasions between 14 April and 23 May 2024 – but only put up stickers; fine of 2.2 million GBP plus 9,929 GBP in costs. According to its 2025 annual accounts, the company had an average of 4,570 employees.

Authority / court

Chelmsford 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

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Published

27 Mar 2026

Original amount 2,200,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Mar 2026.

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

HMRC imposed a penalty of £158,679 under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 on the gallery, which is supervised for anti-money laundering purposes as an art market participant. The failings concerned risk assessment, policies and controls, staff training, due diligence, the timing of verification and record keeping; no appeal was lodged.

Authority / court

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

Reg. 18, 19, 24, 28, 30, 40 und 41 Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

26 Jun 2025

Original amount 158,679 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Jun 2025.

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

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

HMRC imposed a penalty of £175,701 under the Money Laundering Regulations 2017 on the company, which is supervised for anti-money laundering purposes as a high value dealer. The failings concerned risk assessment, policies, controls and procedures, staff training, due diligence and record keeping; no appeal was lodged.

Authority / court

HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

Reg. 18, 19, 24, 28, 35 und 40 Money Laundering, Terrorist Financing and Transfer of Funds (Information on the Payer) Regulations 2017

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

20 Nov 2024

Original amount 175,701 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Nov 2024.

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

Following CMA concerns about countdown timers, scarcity and popularity claims and sign-ups to a paid VIP membership via pre-ticked boxes, the platform's companies gave formal undertakings. They now use only accurate urgency and scarcity claims, no longer use pre-ticked boxes for VIP membership and are refunding the fees – according to the CMA, more than GBP 4m in total to more than 870,000 customers as credit with the option to convert to cash.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Part 8 Enterprise Act 2002 (Undertakings gegenüber der CMA); Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008; Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

19 Jul 2024

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 15 Jul 2026 · Direct link

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 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 10 Jun 2026 · Direct link

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 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 4 Jun 2026 · Direct link

In April 2024, the Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) seized furniture from several product ranges because the purchasing company, 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 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 30 May 2026 · Direct link

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 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 29 May 2026 · Direct link

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 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 27 Mar 2026 · Direct link

On 11 January 2024 the ICO fined a UK meal kit retailer GBP 140,000. According to the ICO's findings, between 23 August 2021 and 23 February 2022 subscribers received 80,893,013 marketing messages from the company, comprising 79,779,279 emails and 1,113,734 texts, without valid consent; the opt-in statement did not mention marketing by text and was bundled with an age confirmation. The ICO treated this as a breach of regulation 22 of PECR. Under the notice, payment by 12 February 2024 reduced the fine to GBP 112,000. The ICO published the case on 12 January 2024.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulation 22 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998 (Geldbuße)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 140,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Jan 2024.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 11 Jan 2026 · Direct link

A 35-year-old forklift driver died at one of the company's sites 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

Employees

250 to 999

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 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 8 Nov 2025 · Direct link

On 28 September 2023 the ICO fined the company GBP 55,000 and served an enforcement notice on the same day. According to the ICO's findings, between 1 January and 28 September 2022 the company made 20,939 unsolicited marketing calls to numbers that had been registered with the TPS or CTPS for more than 28 days; the ICO came across the company during an investigation into unsolicited pension calls. The people called were also not given the caller information required by law. The ICO treated this as a breach of regulations 21 and 24 of PECR. Under the notice, payment by 31 October 2023 reduced the fine to GBP 44,000.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulation 21 und 24 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998 (Geldbuße); section 40 DPA 1998 (Enforcement Notice)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 55,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Sep 2023.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 28 Sep 2025 · Direct link

The CMA found that the club and a sportswear retailer agreed that the retailer would largely stop selling club clothing online in the 2018/19 season and, from the 2019/20 season until at least January 2021, would charge delivery on online orders of these items instead of offering its usual free delivery. Under settlement, a fine of GBP 880,000 was imposed on the club and its parent companies; the retailer had reported the arrangement and was not fined.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Chapter I prohibition Competition Act 1998

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement discount for the club; the retailer received full leniency immunity.

Published

9 Jan 2024

Original amount 880,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Jul 2023.

Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 31 Jul 2025 · Direct link

On 4 October 2022 the ICO fined a UK catalogue retailer GBP 1,350,000. According to the ICO's findings, between 1 August 2019 and 19 August 2020 the company inferred health conditions such as arthritis from customers' purchases of certain items (122 so-called 'trigger products') and used these profiles for targeted marketing calls selling supplements; according to the ICO, about 145,400 people were profiled in this way. The people concerned were not told about this, and the ICO described it as invisible processing without a proper basis, finding an infringement of Article 5(1)(a) GDPR. The ICO increased the fine by GBP 500,000 for aggravating factors. The company appealed on 31 October 2022. By consent, on 15 March 2023 the First-tier Tribunal (General Regulatory Chamber) replaced the notice with one in identical terms except that the amount was reduced to GBP 250,000, and otherwise dismissed the appeal; the company had by then permanently stopped the processing concerned. The ICO published the case on 6 October 2022.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5(1)(a) GDPR; Geldbuße nach section 155 DPA 2018 und Art. 83 GDPR

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

reduced

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 250,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Oct 2022.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 5 · Company name anonymised since 4 Oct 2024 · Direct link

On 4 October 2022 the ICO fined a UK catalogue retailer GBP 130,000 and served an enforcement notice on the same day. According to the ICO's findings, between 1 August 2019 and 19 August 2020 the company instigated 1,345,732 marketing calls to numbers registered with the TPS and continued making such calls during the investigation. The ICO treated this as a breach of regulation 21 of PECR. Under the notice, payment by 3 November 2022 reduced the fine to GBP 104,000. According to an ICO press release of 16 March 2023, this fine was not appealed and was paid in full. The ICO published the case on 6 October 2022.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Regulation 21 PECR; section 55A DPA 1998 (Geldbuße); section 40 DPA 1998 (Enforcement Notice)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 130,000 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Oct 2022.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 4 Oct 2024 · Direct link