Who was sanctioned, and for what?

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

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

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

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

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

GEO Store advertised, among other channels on the official GEO account on X, for example from 12 May to 8 June 2025, a 10% bonus on buy-back prices for used smartphones and tablets that was said to apply only until a certain date. In fact, the same or higher bonuses were available afterwards; the investigation was conducted jointly with the Chubu office of the Japan Fair Trade Commission (JFTC, 公正取引委員会).

Authority / court

Consumer Affairs Agency (消費者庁, CAA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 7 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 5 Nr. 2 Act against Unjustifiable Premiums and Misleading Representations (不当景品類及び不当表示防止法, Gesetz Nr. 134/1962)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

11 Jun 2026

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

A former employee used authentication signing keys that had been accessible to him in plain text during his employment and were neither renewed nor destroyed after he left to create forged tokens and, from April to November 2025, retrieve data on around 33.22 million customers and delivery data on around 4.33 million other people. For inadequate security measures the authority imposed a penalty surcharge of 423,575,000,000 KRW on Coupang Corp. and, for late notification and failure to delete, an administrative fine of 16,800,000 KRW (423,591,800,000 KRW in total) and criticised the exclusion of the chief privacy officer from the internal investigation. A separate decision on the same day imposed a further 201,106,000,000 KRW for collecting behavioural data on third-party websites and apps without consent.

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), Art. 21(1), Art. 31(6), Art. 63(2); Sanktion nach Art. 64-2(1) Nr. 9

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

negligent

Repeat case

yes

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction of 30% because no benefit was derived and 50% for remediation, compensation, certification and proportionality; increases of 25% (duration of the infringement), 30% (at least two previous penalties) and 10% (obstruction of the investigation).

Liability of senior managers

The chief privacy officer (CPO) was excluded from the internal investigation and publication; the company was ordered to set up governance that secures the CPO’s independent work and access to information in incidents.

Published

11 Jun 2026

Original amount 423,591,800,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Jun 2026.

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

From 26 August 2020 to 15 May 2022, Coupang advertised a 'WOW Member Price' below the regular selling price in its online shop without disclosing that it included a coupon redeemable only once by new members of its paid WOW subscription. The KFTC (Korea Fair Trade Commission, Korea's competition and consumer authority) treated the omission of this information as deceptive advertising, issued a corrective order and imposed a fine of KRW 500 million, the statutory maximum fixed-amount fine.

Authority / court

Korea Fair Trade Commission (KFTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 3 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 Act on Fair Labeling and Advertising (täuschende Werbung)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

9 Jun 2026

Original amount 500,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jun 2026.

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

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

Datatilsynet (Norwegian Data Protection Authority) fined Elkjøp Nordic AS and Elkjøp Norge AS NOK 20,000,000. Following an on-site inspection in June 2022, the authority found that consent for the customer club was neither informed nor specific nor freely given, that club data had been reused without a legal basis for the 'kundematch' (customer match) tool, that the lawfulness of so-called offline conversions had not been assessed and documented, and that rectification requests had not been handled within the deadlines. The decision was adopted under the cooperation mechanism with the supervisory authorities of Sweden, Iceland, Finland and Denmark; more than six million club members across the Nordic countries were affected.

Authority / court

Datatilsynet

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 i. V. m. Art. 4 Nr. 11, Art. 6 Abs. 4, Art. 5 Abs. 2 i. V. m. Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a, Art. 12 Abs. 3 DSGVO; Art. 58 Abs. 2 lit. i DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Improvements made after the inspection, Datatilsynet's long case-handling time and the lack of evidence that sensitive data were processed; the amount is well below the starting point in the EDPB guidelines (0.4–0.8% of group turnover).

Published

4 Jun 2026

Original amount 20,000,000 NOK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Jun 2026.

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

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

On the auction website Ticketveiling.nl, House of Tickets B.V. drove up the prices of auctioned lots with automatic bids placed by an algorithm and misled consumers about how the final price came about. The ACM (Autoriteit Consument & Markt, Dutch competition and consumer authority) considered 300,000 EUR appropriate and reduced the fine by 10% to 270,000 EUR because the company admitted the infringements in the simplified procedure; it decided not to fine Ticketveiling B.V.

Authority / court

Autoriteit Consument & Markt (ACM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 8.8 Whc i. V. m. Art. 6:193c Abs. 1 lit. d und Art. 6:193g lit. v BW

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

10% reduction for admitting the infringements and cooperating in the simplified procedure; the infringements were short and ended voluntarily before the investigation began.

Published

28 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

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

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

The online retailer sold household appliances and electronics on instalments and, between September 2021 and February 2025, calculated interest in more than 38,000 credit contracts on the total contract amount instead of the unpaid balance; customers paid almost AUD 20 million too much as a result. Sample contracts also exceeded the statutory annual cost rate cap of 48%. The Court imposed AUD 32 million for the interest calculation and AUD 1.5 million for exceeding the cap, and ordered publication of a notice.

Authority / court

Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail

Legal basis

s 24(1) National Credit Code (Anhang 1 zum National Consumer Credit Protection Act 2009 (Cth)) i. V. m. ss 23(1), 28, 32A(1)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

18 May 2026

Original amount 33,500,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 May 2026.

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

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

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 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link

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

The KNF imposed a fine of PLN 15,000,000 on the listed issuer LPP for breaches of disclosure obligations in its consolidated financial statements for 2021/2022 and 2022/2023. LPP had wrongly recognised impairments of PLN 608m on fixed assets and inventories resulting from the Russian attack on Ukraine of 24 February 2022 as an adjusting event in the 2021/2022 statements and did not correct the comparative figures in the following year, although the authority had repeatedly recommended this and the auditor had issued qualifications. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Komisja Nadzoru Finansowego (KNF)

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Art. 56 Abs. 1 Nr. 2 lit. a ustawa o ofercie publicznej i. V. m. § 3 Abs. 1 und 3 sowie § 71 Abs. 1 Nr. 3 lit. b Verordnung des Finanzministers über laufende und periodische Informationen; IAS 2, 8, 10 und 36

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 15,000,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Apr 2026.

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

According to the decision of the Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council), the distributor Rickman Trade set the resale prices for JURA coffee machines for retailers, while EUGESTA and Innocent PRO monitored and maintained those prices at retail level in order to secure a uniform price level in Latvia. Fines: Rickman Trade OÜ with its Latvian branch 255,938.04 EUR, EUGESTA 232,636.20 EUR and Innocent PRO, after a 10 % settlement reduction, 23,525.93 EUR, totalling 512,100.17 EUR.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 11 Abs. 1 Konkurences likums (Wettbewerbsgesetz)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Innocent PRO received a 10 % reduction following a settlement offer.

Published

7 May 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 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

The CCPC found that the retailer had not stated the correct prior price for price reductions on brownthomas.com and arnotts.ie during the 2024/2025 winter sales. The company pleaded guilty in January 2026; in March 2026 the court ordered a donation of €1,000 to a charity and struck out the charges without conviction.

Authority / court

Dublin District Court (Anklage: Competition and Consumer Protection Commission, CCPC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Regulation 5A European Communities (Requirements to Indicate Product Prices) Regulations 2002 (S.I. No. 639/2002), geändert durch S.I. No. 597/2022

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

5 Jul 2026

Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link

The AGCM found that, within its selective distribution system for jewellery and watches, Morellato set its retailers' online resale prices and prohibited them from using third-party marketplaces and intermediation platforms from 20 July 2018 to 23 December 2025; by way of retaliation, Morellato blocked orders (Art. 101(1) TFEU). The fine amounts to 25,895,043 EUR.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 Abs. 1 AEUV; Art. 15 Legge n. 287/1990

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Because treating the marketplace ban as a restriction of competition was novel, the AGCM calculated the fine solely on the basis of the online resale price maintenance.

Published

31 Mar 2026

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