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

In 2021, the Luxembourg data protection authority (CNPD) had imposed 746 million EUR and an order to bring processing into compliance on account of behavioural online advertising; the Administrative Tribunal (Tribunal administratif) confirmed this on 18 March 2025. On 12 March 2026, the Administrative Court (Cour administrative) confirmed that legitimate interest was not a sound legal basis and that the information was insufficient, but annulled the fine on the basis of more recent CJEU case law on the requirement of culpability; the CNPD is re-examining the sanction.

Authority / court

Cour administrative (Luxemburg); Verfahren der CNPD

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. f, Art. 12 ff. DSGVO

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

overturned

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Mitigating circumstances

Amazon had implemented the compliance order before the hearing.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The nationwide jewellery chain (a dealer in precious metals and stones) received a penalty of 51,562.50 CAD from the Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC) because written compliance policies were lacking or not applied, the money laundering risk was not assessed and documented, and the prescribed two-yearly effectiveness review was not carried out. Birks has appealed to the Federal Court.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act, Part 1, und zugehörige Verordnungen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

5 May 2026

Original amount 51,562.5 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Mar 2026.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Two importers of dog and cat food monitored their retailers’ consumer prices on price comparison portals and asked them to adjust them to their price lists; the retailers complied. In a settlement procedure (Decision 901/2026), the Επιτροπή Ανταγωνισμού (Hellenic Competition Commission) imposed 387,498 EUR on KOMPA and 95,000 EUR on Happy Dog; the case began with a tip-off via the authority’s anonymous whistleblowing platform.

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

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement procedure with reduced fines

Published

6 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

During a wave of boycotts in 2024, Loblaw did not process deletion requests in time and retained purchase and usage data from the loyalty programme (more than 17 million members) even after accounts were closed, without demonstrating effective anonymisation. Loblaw undertook to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC) to have the anonymisation independently reviewed and to carry out annual deletions.

Authority / court

Office of the Privacy Commissioner of Canada (OPC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

PIPEDA

Action

Other

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

5 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to the FTC and eleven states, Walmart misled the drivers of its Spark Driver delivery service about base pay, incentives and tips, so that they lost tens of millions of dollars in earnings. The court order comprises judgments of 100 million USD: 89 million USD for the FTC (of which 10 million USD is paid and 16,175,302 USD goes into a driver fund, the remainder suspended because of back payments already made) and 11 million USD for the states. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC) mit elf Bundesstaaten (AZ, CA, CO, IL, MI, NC, OK, PA, SC, UT, WI)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 6801–6809, 6821–6827); Verbraucherschutzgesetze der klagenden Bundesstaaten

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

26 Feb 2026

Original amount 100,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 3 Mar 2026.

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

The Openbaar Ministerie (OM, Dutch Public Prosecution Service) imposed a penalty order of 500,000 EUR on the Dutch Louis Vuitton BV for breaches of the Wwft (Dutch Anti-Money Laundering and Anti-Terrorist Financing Act) because, over a long period, the company did not sufficiently check who the customers were who repeatedly spent large amounts in cash. The case arises from ongoing money laundering proceedings in which, according to the OM, a buyer spent a total of more than 2 million EUR of criminal proceeds under various names on luxury goods in shops such as those of Louis Vuitton between August 2021 and February 2023 and sent the bags to China for resale; a then sales employee allegedly helped her and warned her whenever she was about to spend more than 10,000 EUR a month through one of her customer accounts. The OM settled the matter out of court to free up scarce hearing capacity at the Rechtbank Rotterdam (Rotterdam District Court).

Authority / court

Openbaar Ministerie (OM), Landelijk Parket

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence

Legal basis

Wet ter voorkoming van witwassen en financieren van terrorisme (Wwft), Kundenprüfung; Strafbefehl des OM

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

12 Feb 2026

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

From April to October 2021 the Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC, Quebec's consumer protection office) checked the prices of seven advertised products in flyers, online and in three stores in the greater Montréal area: the regular prices cited as the reference were actually charged in only a very small share of sales. Canadian Tire pleaded guilty, for five of the products, to stating false reference prices contrary to s. 225(b) of the Loi sur la protection du consommateur (LPC, Quebec Consumer Protection Act) and must pay fines totalling CAD 1,287,550 including costs on 74 counts.

Authority / court

Gericht in Montréal (Ermittlung: Office de la protection du consommateur (OPC); Anklage: Directeur des poursuites criminelles et pénales (DPCP))

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Loi sur la protection du consommateur (RLRQ c. P-40.1), Art. 225 b)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

6 Feb 2026

Original amount 1,287,550 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Feb 2026.

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

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).

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

According to the AGCM, eDreams misled consumers about the alleged benefits of its "Prime" subscription using deceptive design elements and manipulative techniques and pushed them into membership (practice A); it also made it hard to leave the subscription (practice B). Vacaciones eDreams S.L., eDreams International Network S.L. and eDreams S.r.l. were jointly and severally fined 6,000,000 and 3,000,000 EUR, a total of 9,000,000 EUR.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Art. 20, 21, 22, 23 Abs. 1 lit. g, 24, 25, 26 lit. f Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

4 Feb 2026

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

Zalando did not display the lowest price of the previous 30 days for discounts, manipulated reference prices to make reductions appear larger and did not present the mandatory information consistently at all stages of the purchasing process. Poland's Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) imposed a fine of 30,945,000 PLN; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Polnische Umsetzung der Omnibus-Richtlinie (Preisangaben bei Preisermäßigungen); Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

14 Jan 2026

Original amount 30,945,000 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The operator of the Temu interface omitted the 30-day lowest price or stated it incorrectly, labelled promotions inconsistently and changed reference prices from day to day without the actual price changing. UOKiK imposed a fine of 5,910,900 PLN; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Polnische Umsetzung der Omnibus-Richtlinie (Preisangaben bei Preisermäßigungen); Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

14 Jan 2026

Original amount 5,910,900 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Jan 2026.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to the FTC, Instacart advertised free delivery but charged mandatory service fees of up to 15 %, promised a "100 % satisfaction guarantee" without providing full refunds and did not sufficiently point out the subsequent charges for trial subscriptions. Under the settlement, the company is paying 60 million USD for refunds and must discontinue the practices complained of.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Restore Online Shoppers' Confidence Act (ROSCA)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Published

18 Dec 2025

Original amount 60,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Jan 2026.

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

The CNIL (French data protection authority) fined an unnamed retail chain EUR 3,500,000 (EUR 2,500,000 under Art. 6(1)(a), 13, 32 and 35 GDPR and EUR 1,000,000 under Art. 82 of the Loi Informatique et Libertés, the French Data Protection Act). Since 2018 the company had transferred e-mail addresses and telephone numbers of members of its loyalty programme to a social network without valid consent in order to show them targeted advertising there; more than 10.5 million people were affected. In addition, there was inadequate information, weak password rules with SHA-256 hashing, no data protection impact assessment, and cookies that were set before any choice and continued to be read after a refusal.

Authority / court

Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), formation restreinte

Area of law

Data protection · Marketing and consent

Legal basis

Art. 6 Abs. 1 lit. a, 13, 32 und 35 DSGVO; Art. 82 Loi n° 78-17 du 6 janvier 1978 (Loi Informatique et Libertés)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Culpability

negligent

Published

22 Jan 2026

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

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).

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.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

The supermarket chain advertised promotions such as "Special Wednesday" with "100 % money back as a voucher", but did not state restrictions concerning product categories, minimum spend and use of the vouchers in radio, app and in-store advertising, only on the receipt, the website or in-store notices. UOKiK imposed a fine of 104,722,016 PLN; the decision is not final.

Authority / court

Urząd Ochrony Konkurencji i Konsumentów (UOKiK)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Verletzung kollektiver Verbraucherinteressen (irreführende Werbung durch Unterlassen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Culpability

intentional

Published

4 Dec 2025

Original amount 104,722,016 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Dec 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

Following a cyber attack involving unauthorised access to data, which according to the decision may have affected up to around 6.38 million people (including around 4.67 million customers in Spain as well as employees and former employees), the AEPD as lead authority found inadequate security measures (Art. 5(1)(f) GDPR). The sanction of 2,600,000 EUR was reduced by 40% to 1,560,000 EUR because liability was acknowledged and payment made voluntarily; remedial measures were also ordered.

Authority / court

Agencia Española de Protección de Datos (AEPD)

Area of law

Data protection · Data breaches and data security

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. f DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

1,000 to 9,999

Mitigating circumstances

40% reduction for acknowledgement of liability and voluntary payment (Art. 85 LPACAP).

Published

19 Dec 2025

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

In a second consent decree, Lowe's Home Centers undertakes to pay a civil penalty of allegedly 12,500,000 USD and to introduce a company-wide programme so that the installation firms it hires work lead-safely in homes built before 1978. The EPA had found breaches of the Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule on more than 250 renovation jobs in 23 states, mostly from 2019 to 2021, such as missing certified renovators, missing customer information and inadequate dust containment, as well as breaches of a 2014 settlement. The settlement was lodged with the court on 25 November 2025. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) / U.S. Department of Justice (U.S. District Court, Central District of California)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances

Legal basis

Toxic Substances Control Act (TSCA), Lead Renovation, Repair and Painting Rule; Consent Decree von 2014

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Repeat case

yes

Published

25 Nov 2025

Original amount 12,500,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 25 Nov 2025.

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

The fashion mail-order company presented discounts in a misleading manner and exerted psychological pressure with countdowns running down by the second and scarcity notices. In addition to a fine of 505 million HUF imposed by the Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (Hungarian Competition Authority, GVH), the Hamburg-based operating company committed to paying compensation of 1,750 HUF each to all Hungarian customers who made purchases between 31 December 2022 and 31 December 2024 (estimated at over 500 million HUF) and to a consumer protection compliance programme.

Authority / court

Gazdasági Versenyhivatal (GVH)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Verbot unlauterer Geschäftspraktiken gegenüber Verbrauchern

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Acknowledgement, cooperation, customer compensation and compliance programme almost halved the fine.

Published

19 Nov 2025

Original amount 505,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Nov 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The Konsumentombudsmannen (KO, Swedish Consumer Ombudsman) issued H&M with a prohibition order (föreläggande) because, when advertising price reductions, the company had stated a higher price than the lowest price applied in the previous 30 days, in breach of the Price Information Act (prisinformationslagen). The prohibition is backed by a conditional fine (vite) of 2,000,000 SEK; KO reduced it from 3 million SEK because the breach was limited and H&M had taken countermeasures. An earlier supervisory case from 2023 on long sale periods had been closed in March 2024 after the company stated, among other things, that it was working continuously to comply with the rules.

Authority / court

Konsumentombudsmannen (KO) / Konsumentverket

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Prisinformationslagen (Angabe des niedrigsten Preises der letzten 30 Tage bei Preisermäßigungen)

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Limited breach and countermeasures taken: conditional fine reduced from 3 million to 2 million SEK.

Published

17 Nov 2025

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

In the first Italian proceedings under the Platform-to-Business Regulation, AGCOM (Italian communications regulator) found that the online marketplace's terms and conditions gave business users insufficient information on ranking criteria, access to data and the internal complaint-handling system and mediation. The authority warned the company not to repeat the infringements and ordered it, within 120 days, to set up timely and transparent complaint handling, supplement its terms and publish reports on the complaint system.

Authority / court

Autorità per le garanzie nelle comunicazioni (AGCOM)

Area of law

AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1, 9 Abs. 1 und 2, 11 Abs. 2–4 und 12 Abs. 1 Verordnung (EU) 2019/1150 (P2B-Verordnung); Art. 1 Abs. 31 Legge 249/1997

Action

Reprimand or warning

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

3 Dec 2025

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

In 2022, clearance of an acquisition in food retail in Martinique was made conditional on the divestiture of a Géant Casino hypermarket by September 2023; Parfait only sold it in September 2025, allowed the value of the assets to deteriorate and obstructed the trustee (decision 25-D-05). Fines: 4.5 million EUR (divestiture), 2.5 million EUR (preservation of value), 600,000 EUR (cooperation).

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Merger control

Legal basis

Verstoß gegen Zusagen aus Freigabeentscheidung 22-DCC-254 (Fusionskontrolle, Code de commerce)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

3 Nov 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

From November 2021 to August 2024, the retailer (market share 28%) put pressure on economically dependent suppliers: price increases remained unapproved for months, lower prices were demanded in the form of ultimatums and delisting was threatened. The Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) found an unfair trading practice, imposed 1,872,805 EUR and set clear deadlines for negotiations.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Negodīgas tirdzniecības prakses aizlieguma likums (NTPAL)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

5 Nov 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to the allegations of the attorneys general, the online fashion retailer enrolled buyers in a paid VIP membership programme without their express consent, presented prices in a misleading way and made cancellation difficult. Under the settlement with 32 states and D.C., TFG is providing around 3.8 million USD in automatic refunds and paying 1 million USD to the states; the settlement does not constitute an admission of guilt.

Authority / court

Attorney General of Pennsylvania (verhandelt mit Maryland, Texas und D.C.; Vergleich mit 33 Attorneys General)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Verbraucherschutzgesetze der beteiligten Bundesstaaten

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

23 Oct 2025

Original amount 4,800,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Oct 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to FINTRAC, Griffin Jewellery Designs Inc. is a dealer in precious metals and stones. Canada's anti-money laundering regulator FINTRAC imposed an administrative monetary penalty of CAD 77,137.50 on the company on 17 October 2025. According to FINTRAC's findings, made during a compliance examination, the company committed 3 violations of the Proceeds of Crime (Money Laundering) and Terrorist Financing Act (PCMLTFA) and its regulations. As described by the regulator, the violations concerned written compliance policies and procedures, assessing and documenting money laundering and terrorist financing risks and the prescribed review of the compliance programme. According to FINTRAC, the company is paying the penalty in full and the case is closed. Source: FINTRAC (Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada), "Administrative monetary penalty on Griffin Jewellery Designs Inc.", published 4 December 2025, https://fintrac-canafe.canada.ca/pen/amps/pen-2025-12-04-eng; summarised in our own words; not an official version and not a reproduction of the original.

Authority / court

Financial Transactions and Reports Analysis Centre of Canada (FINTRAC)

Area of law

Money laundering and terrorist financing · Internal controls

Legal basis

PCMLTFA s. 9.6(1), 9.6(2); PCMLTF Regulations 156(1)(b), 156(1)(c), 156(1)(f); Verwaltungsgeldbuße nach Teil 4.1 PCMLTFA

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

4 Dec 2025

Original amount 77,137.5 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Oct 2025.

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 3 · Direct link

In 2022, during a large data migration project, the online wine retailer suffered unauthorised access to a database holding data on around 928,760 customers and members (identity, contact and financial information). The Privacy Commissioner found that Vinomofo had not taken reasonable steps to protect the data, although it had been aware of deficiencies in its security governance at least two years before the incident, and ordered it not to repeat these practices, together with specified remedial steps.

Authority / court

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)

Area of law

Data protection · Data breaches and data security

Legal basis

APP 11.1 (Privacy Act 1988 (Cth))

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

29 Oct 2025

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

Between February 2022 and July 2023 the meal-kit provider called former customers, ostensibly to gather feedback but mainly to offer them discount vouchers, without making clear that accepting could reactivate their paid subscription; after more than a million call attempts, almost 80,000 subscriptions were reactivated. After pleading guilty to five charges under s 11 of the Fair Trading Act, the company was fined 845,000 NZD on 16 October 2025.

Authority / court

Strafgericht, in der Quelle nicht benannt (Anklage: Commerce Commission)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Fair Trading Act 1986, s 11

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

17 Oct 2025

Original amount 845,000 NZD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 16 Oct 2025.

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

According to the European Commission's findings, from April 2015 to April 2023 Gucci restricted the freedom of independent online and brick-and-mortar retailers throughout the EEA to set their own resale prices, for example through requirements on recommended prices, maximum discounts and sales periods, and prohibited online sales for one product line. Owing to its cooperation, including revealing an infringement unknown to the Commission, the fine was reduced by 50% to 119,674,000 EUR; separate decisions against Chloé and Loewe were adopted on the same day.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Cartels and collusion

Legal basis

Art. 101 AEUV; Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation providing evidence of significant added value, disclosure of an unknown infringement and acknowledgement: 50% reduction.

Published

14 Oct 2025

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

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).

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

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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).

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

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The rural retail giant inadequately informed consumers and job applicants about their rights, offered no effective means of opting out of the sale and sharing of data (including no Global Privacy Control) and passed data on to third parties without the required contracts. An officer must certify compliance annually for four years, as required by the California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA).

Authority / court

California Privacy Protection Agency (CPPA)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

30 Sep 2025

Original amount 1,350,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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

The CNIL (French data protection authority) fined Samaritaine SAS, operator of the Paris department store of the same name, EUR 100,000 because in August 2023, in response to thefts of goods, it had installed cameras disguised as smoke detectors and capable of recording sound in two stockrooms, which employees discovered a few weeks later. The CNIL objected to the lack of any prior assessment and documentation of the covert deployment, intended to be only temporary, the excessive recording of employees' conversations, the late involvement of the data protection officer, and the failure to notify and document a personal data breach after employees kept the memory cards containing the recordings when the cameras were removed (Art. 33(1) and (5) GDPR).

Authority / court

Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), formation restreinte

Area of law

Data protection · Video surveillance

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. c, Art. 33 Abs. 1 und 5, Art. 38 Abs. 1 DSGVO

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

250 to 999

Culpability

negligent

Published

23 Sep 2025

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

From 8 October to 23 November 2024, Japanet Takata offered a two-tier New Year food box ('osechi' for 2025) in its online shop, stating that the 'Japanet regular price' of 29,980 JPY had been reduced by 10,000 JPY to 19,980 JPY, with the regular price presented as applying after the promotion ended. There was no reliable plan to sell at the higher price afterwards; the investigation was conducted jointly with the Kyushu 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

12 Sep 2025

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

The furniture retailer had stored data of around 385,000 customers in a legacy system without retention periods. The district court had imposed 100,000 DKK; following a referral to the CJEU on whether the fine is to be calculated on the basis of the turnover of the entire group, the High Court increased the fine to 1.5 million DKK.

Authority / court

Vestre Landsret (auf Anzeige der Datatilsynet)

Area of law

Data protection

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. e, Art. 83

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Original amount 1,500,000 DKK, converted at the ECB reference rate of 2 Sep 2025.

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

On shein.com, advertising cookies were placed without consent as soon as the site was accessed; in addition to an incomplete cookie banner, there was an advertising pop-up without an option to reject. After clicking ‘Reject all’ or withdrawing consent, cookies continued to be read. The Commission nationale de l’informatique et des libertés (French data protection authority, CNIL) imposed 150 million EUR.

Authority / court

Commission nationale de l'informatique et des libertés (CNIL), formation restreinte

Area of law

Data protection · Cookies and tracking

Legal basis

Art. 82 Loi Informatique et Libertés (Umsetzung von Art. 5 Abs. 3 ePrivacy-Richtlinie)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

From June 2020 to July 2022, Kmart Australia used facial recognition in 28 stores to record the face of every person who came in and of every customer at the returns counters, with the aim of uncovering refund fraud, without informing them or obtaining their consent. The Privacy Commissioner rejected the exception for addressing unlawful activity, because the indiscriminate collection of sensitive biometric information was disproportionate given less intrusive alternatives and its limited benefit, and ordered that the conduct must not be continued or repeated. The decision is currently under review before the Administrative Review Tribunal; hearings are scheduled for early 2027. The decision is not final.

Authority / court

Office of the Australian Information Commissioner (OAIC)

Area of law

Data protection · Video surveillance

Legal basis

Privacy Act 1988 (Cth), APP 1.3, 1.4, 3.3, 3.4, 5.1, 5.2

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Kmart stopped using the system in July 2022 when the investigation began and cooperated with the regulator throughout.

Published

18 Sep 2025

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

At Kwong's Art Jewellery Trading Company Limited and its retail subsidiary My Jewelry Management Limited, which run their IT systems jointly, an attacker (reported in November 2024) obtained the credentials of an administrator account by brute force, exfiltrated the database and deleted it; around 79,400 individuals were affected, including customers and current and former employees. In its report published on 21 August 2025 the PCPD (Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data, Hong Kong's data protection authority) found breaches of DPP 4(1), among other things because the account of a departed employee had not been deleted in time, server operating systems were outdated and security policies and security assessments were lacking. Both companies were served enforcement notices to remedy the deficiencies and prevent further contraventions.

Authority / court

Privacy Commissioner for Personal Data (PCPD), Hongkong

Area of law

Data protection · Data breaches and data security

Legal basis

Personal Data (Privacy) Ordinance, Data Protection Principle 4(1); Enforcement Notices

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Published

21 Aug 2025

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

Italy's competition and consumer protection authority (Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato, AGCM) objected to vague and in part false claims about circular design and recyclability, about the ‘green’ evoluSHEIN collection (only a small share of the range) and about emission targets, while emissions rose in 2023/2024. The ultra-fast-fashion model is subject to a heightened duty of care, the authority held; it imposed 1 million EUR (case PS12709).

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims

Legal basis

Codice del Consumo (unlautere Geschäftspraktiken), Verfahren PS12709

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

4 Aug 2025

Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The Commerce Commission (ComCom, New Zealand's competition and consumer regulator) warned Kmart NZ Holdings Limited because, from 4 August 2023 to 4 October 2024, the company advertised own-brand clothing with the claim “100% sustainably sourced cotton” without being able to substantiate it: the cotton sourced as “Better Cotton” was mixed with conventional cotton in the supply chain. The authority considers a breach of s 12A Fair Trading Act 1986 (unsubstantiated representations) likely; only a court could determine one.

Authority / court

Commerce Commission (ComCom), Neuseeland

Area of law

Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims

Legal basis

s 12A Fair Trading Act 1986 (Neuseeland)

Action

Reprimand or warning

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

Kmart removed the claim from its New Zealand website after the authority raised it and stated that it continues to provide regular compliance training on consumer and competition law.

Published

14 Aug 2025

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

The Armani companies advertised ethical and social responsibility commitments, among other places in their code of ethics and on their website, while production of certain items was outsourced directly or indirectly to workshops, some operating illegally, where workers were employed at inadequate wages, beyond statutory working-time limits and with deficient health and safety conditions. The AGCM found the claims misleading and fined Giorgio Armani S.p.A. and G.A. Operations S.p.A. 3,500,000 EUR jointly and severally.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Art. 20, 21 Codice del consumo (D.lgs. 206/2005)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Retail and e-commerce

Mitigating circumstances

The basic amount of 5,000,000 EUR was reduced to 3,500,000 EUR because, according to records of the Tribunale di Milano (Milan court), G.A. Operations had implemented the requirements of the court-appointed administrator and brought the procedure to an early close on 18 February 2025.

Published

1 Aug 2025

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