Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific and Middle East: 1,929 cases from 40 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by company- Amazon.com, Inc. €2.13bn 42 % · 1 case
- Groupe SEB, Darty, Boulanger u. a. (12 Unternehmen) €611m 12 % · 1 case
- Anonymised companies €565.8m 11 % · 28 cases
- AliExpress €550m 11 % · 2 cases
- Delivery Hero SE, Glovoapp23 SA €329m 7 % · 1 case
- Temu €200m 4 % · 1 case
- Infinite Styles Services Co. Limited (Shein) €150m 3 % · 1 case
- Gucci €119.7m 2 % · 1 case
- Walmart Inc. €86.2m 2 % · 1 case
- Maplebear Inc. (Instacart) €51.5m 1 % · 1 case
- 93 more€246.8m
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q4 2023 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2024 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q3 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | – |
| Q1 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q2 2026 | 1 | – |
| Q3 2026 | 0 | – |
| Q4 2026 | 0 | – |
1 case
22 May 2026 Emma Matratzen GmbH, Emma Sleep UK Limited, Emma Sleep GmbHHigh Court: Emma Sleep agrees to end pressure-selling tactics after CMA claim Order
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.
Artificial time pressure and apparent scarcity in an online shop are an enforcement risk, up to contempt sanctions, even for foreign sellers with UK customers.
Misleading urgency and discount claims in online retail
- 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
- High Court of Justice, Claim No FS-2024-000004, CMA v Emma Matratzen GmbH and others: Consent Order (22 May 2026) Court decision
- CMA case page: Emma Group: consumer protection case Enforcement database of an authority
- CMA press release: Court endorses CMA action as Emma Sleep agrees to change sales practices (28 May 2026) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link