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: 2,033 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.

South Africa Retail and e-commerce Clear all filters

1case from 1 jurisdiction

€46,020Total of monetary amounts

€46,020Largest single case: Vermont Sales (Pty) Ltd

€46,020Median per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

by amount by number of cases

Where?

by authority

Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission) 1 case 100 % · €46,020

What for?

by area of law

All areas of law

Competition law 1 case 100 % · €46,020

Who?

by company

Vermont Sales (Pty) Ltd 1 case 100 % · €46,020

When?

per quarter, by date of decision

Trend
Period	Cases	Total
Q4 2023	0	–
Q1 2024	0	–
Q2 2024	0	–
Q3 2024	0	–
Q4 2024	0	–
Q1 2025	1	€46,020
Q2 2025	0	–
Q3 2025	0	–
Q4 2025	0	–
Q1 2026	0	–
Q2 2026	0	–
Q3 2026	0	–
Q4 2026	0	–

1 case

Newest first Highest amounts

4 Mar 2025 Vermont Sales (Pty) LtdCompetition Tribunal: allegedly ZAR 900,000 against Vermont Sales over discount cap for dealers South AfricaCartels and collusion €46,020

The importer and wholesaler of power tools allegedly prohibited dealers without their own stock from advertising Festool products below the recommended list price and allowed a maximum discount of 15% (minimum resale price maintenance). In a settlement without admission of liability, Vermont allegedly pays ZAR 900,000 in three instalments and introduces a compliance programme with annually updated training.

What organisations can take from it

Rules on advertised price levels or maximum discount rates imposed on dealers can also amount to prohibited resale price maintenance.

Relevance to training and awareness

Discount rules and advertising restrictions for dealers

Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.

Authority / court: Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
Area of law: Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis: Competition Act 89 of 1998, s. 5(2); ss. 49D, 58(1)(a)(iii), 58(1)(b), 59
Action: Fine
Status of proceedings: final
Sector: Retail and e-commerce
Mitigating circumstances: Vermont approached the Commission on its own initiative to settle the matter amicably; training had already started.
Published: 4 Mar 2025

Original amount 900,000 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Mar 2025.

Sources

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

Report an error

How the radar is compiled

Official sources only

Every case is based on a decision, press release or database of an authority or a court. Press and law-firm reports count at most as additional references.

Four-eyes check

Whoever enters a case may not approve it. A second, independent check compares company, date, amount and area of law with the source. Only then is the case published.

Comparable amounts

Amounts are converted at the ECB reference rate on the day of the decision. Each case also shows the original amount.

Corrections on record

A correction is a new version that is checked again. Every change is logged. You can report errors directly on each case.

Case texts are translated from the German original. Where a translation is not yet available, the German text is shown and marked “(German original)”. Names of authorities, laws and companies are given as in the source (company names until they are anonymised).

Company names are anonymised two years after the decision in a case, in line with the practice of many supervisory authorities. The official sources remain linked.

The radar reports on published decisions and is not legal advice. Decisions that are not yet final are marked as such where the status is known.

Embed the radar on your website

Ready for training that actually lands?