Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe, North America, Latin America, Asia-Pacific, Middle East and Africa: 2,207 cases from 44 jurisdictions, each with an official source and checked against that source before publication. Filter by country, area of law and sector. Click a chart to drill down one level.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by countryWhat for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by company- Anonymised companies €62.6m 100 % · 3 cases
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | – |
| 2023 | 4 | €62.6m |
| 2024 | 2 | €500,000 |
| 2025 | 0 | – |
| 2026 | 0 | – |
7 cases
27 Jun 2024 BGH: advertising with ‘climate neutral’ only permissible with explanation in the advertisement itself Order
A manufacturer of fruit gums and liquorice (not named in the official press release) advertised in a trade journal that it had produced all its products ‘climate neutral’ since 2021, although this was achieved partly through offsetting. Germany's Federal Court of Justice (Bundesgerichtshof, BGH) prohibited the advertising following an action brought by the Centre for Protection against Unfair Competition (Wettbewerbszentrale): ambiguous environmental terms must be explained in the advertisement itself, since reduction and offsetting are not equivalent.
Companies advertising with ‘climate neutral’ must explain directly in the advertisement whether emissions are avoided or merely offset.
Legally compliant environmental and climate claims in advertising
- Authority / court
- Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Misleading environmental and sustainability claims
- Legal basis
- § 3 Abs. 1, § 5 Abs. 1, § 5a Abs. 1 und 3, § 8 Abs. 1 Satz 1 UWG
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 27 Jun 2024
- Bundesgerichtshof, Pressemitteilungen (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Court press release
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 27 Jun 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Jan 2024 Vegetable grower cheats harvest workers out of minimum wage: around 500,000 EUR in fines and confiscation €500,000
A vegetable-growing business did not pay harvest workers the collectively agreed minimum wage; the shortfall was just under 300,000 EUR. The investigation was based on interviews conducted with interpreters and the analysis of working time and harvest volume data. Fines of around 200,000 EUR were imposed, and around 300,000 EUR in proceeds of the offence were confiscated in addition (date = publication).
Piece-rate and volume-based pay in seasonal work must reach the minimum wage per hour; deductions for accommodation and work equipment are closely scrutinised.
- Authority / court
- Hauptzollamt Karlsruhe (Finanzkontrolle Schwarzarbeit)
- Area of law
- Health and safety and employment law · Minimum wage and undeclared work
- Legal basis
- Mindestlohn- bzw. Tarifrecht (tariflich bestimmter Mindestlohn); Einziehung des Tatertrags
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Published
- 30 Jan 2024
- Zoll, Presse (Übersicht) (Entscheidung 2024) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 30 Jan 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 Dec 2023 three German confectionery manufacturersDüsseldorf court: €8.35m on three confectionery makers for information exchange €8.35m
The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) fined three confectionery manufacturers that had exchanged information, in committee meetings of a working group of the German confectionery industry association, on the state of their annual negotiations and special demands with food retailers (2006 to January 2008): 4.75 million EUR on the first manufacturer, 3 million EUR on the second and 0.6 million EUR on the third, 8.35 million EUR in total. Because of an unlawful delay in the proceedings, 25% of each fine is deemed enforced, leaving 6.2625 million EUR to be paid.
Exchanging information on negotiations with retail customers in association committees is prohibited; effective compliance measures can reduce the fine.
Information exchange in trade association committees
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 6. Kartellsenat (Urteil nach Einsprüchen gegen Bußgeldbescheide des Bundeskartellamts)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Kartellordnungswidrigkeit (Informationsaustausch); Az. V-6 Kart 9/19 OWi
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- Lesser competition-law significance of the infringement, strong buyer power of food retailers, objections limited to the penalty after a negotiated agreement, and compliance measures taken since; 25% of the fines deemed enforced because of the unlawful delay.
- Published
- 19 Dec 2023
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 19 Dec 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
7 Dec 2023 DSB: 20,000 EUR against restaurant business over constant surveillance of kitchen and pick-up area €20,000
A restaurant company with a delivery and pick-up service (name pseudonymised) recorded workstations in the kitchen and pick-up area without interruption, even outside opening hours, and stored the recordings for 14 days. In addition, there had been no record of processing activities since 2018; the Austrian data protection authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 20,000 EUR, and the penalty decision is final.
Even small businesses may not film employees permanently – and they need a record of their processing activities.
- Authority / court
- Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Video surveillance
- Legal basis
- Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 30 Abs. 1 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- RIS, Entscheidungen der Datenschutzbehörde (Suche) (Entscheidung 2023) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 7 Dec 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
13 Sep 2023 a German sugar groupSugar cartel: €4.2m fine on a sugar group for sharing the market in 2006 €4.2m
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) fined a German sugar group 4.2 million EUR because, in a telephone call on 22 February 2006, it had agreed with another sugar producer to share the Austrian market for industrial sugar from February to October 2006. The Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde (BWB, Federal Competition Authority) had applied for considerably higher fines in 2010; after the OGH (Supreme Court) set aside the dismissal of the fine application on 21 October 2022, the proceedings ended in a settlement.
A single telephone call pressing a competitor to stay out of a market is market sharing liable to a fine, even years later.
Territorial agreements between competitors by telephone
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Art. 101 AEUV und § 1 KartG 2005; § 29 Z 1 lit. a und d KartG 2005
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- The court took into account the company's economic situation in the last two financial years and the long duration of the proceedings; the group accepted the facts and the amount of the fine.
- Published
- 9 Apr 2024
- RIS, Judikatur Justiz (Suche) (Entscheidung 2023) Court decision
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 13 Sep 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
2 May 2023 a German brewery holding companyDüsseldorf Higher Regional Court: 50 million EUR fine on brewery holding in beer cartel €50m
The Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf (Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf) fined a brewery holding company 50 million EUR for an unlawful exchange of information: in March 2007 its then managing director had discussed, on the fringes of a trade fair, an imminent beer price rise of around six euros per hectolitre with senior staff of several other breweries and later used that knowledge in the 2008 price increase. The Bundeskartellamt (Federal Cartel Office) had initially imposed 62 million EUR in 2013/2014; after the case was discontinued as time-barred (2019) and that ruling was set aside by the Bundesgerichtshof (Federal Court of Justice) (2020), the court ruled in a new trial on the basis of a negotiated agreement.
A single conversation about planned price rises on the fringes of a trade fair can trigger a fine running into tens of millions.
Exchange of information between competitors at industry meetings
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Düsseldorf, 6. Kartellsenat (Urteil nach Einspruch gegen Bußgeldbescheid des Bundeskartellamts)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Kartellordnungswidrigkeit (Informationsaustausch); Az. V-6 Kart 1/20 (OWi)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- Negotiated agreement, long duration of the proceedings and a single infringement dating back many years; the nationwide effect counted against the company.
- Published
- 2 May 2023
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 2 May 2025 · Direct link
Report an error
21 Oct 2022 OGH establishes cartel agreement between two sugar producers on deliveries to Austria Other
The OGH found that a German sugar producer anonymised in the decision had agreed with a competitor in a telephone conversation on 22 February 2006 that its Slovak subsidiary would make no further exports of industrial sugar to Austria – an infringement of Art. 101 TFEU and Section 1 KartG (Austrian Cartel Act). As it was the leniency applicant, the BWB had not applied for a fine against it; the Cartel Court must decide afresh on the fine against the second producer.
A single telephone call in which supply territories are allocated is enough to constitute a cartel infringement.
Individual telephone calls with competitors about supply territories
- Authority / court
- Oberster Gerichtshof als Kartellobergericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 KartG 2005, Art. 101 AEUV
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- Mitigating circumstances
- Leniency status of the first respondent
- RIS, Judikatur Justiz (Suche) (Entscheidung 2022) Court decision
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 4 · Company name anonymised since 21 Oct 2024 · Direct link