Compliance Radar

Who was sanctioned, and for what?

Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 756 cases from 32 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.

USA Media and online platforms Clear all filters

5cases from 1 jurisdiction

€30.1mTotal of monetary amounts (4 cases with an amount)

€24.8mLargest single case: Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc.

€2mMedian per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

by amount by number of cases

Where?

by level

What for?

by area of law

All areas of law

Who?

by company

When?

per quarter, by date of decision

Trend
Period	Cases	Total
Q3 2023	1	€24.8m
Q4 2023	0	—
Q1 2024	0	—
Q2 2024	0	—
Q3 2024	0	—
Q4 2024	0	—
Q1 2025	2	€1.68m
Q2 2025	0	—
Q3 2025	1	€1.31m
Q4 2025	0	—
Q1 2026	1	€2.31m
Q2 2026	0	—
Q3 2026	0	—

5 cases

Newest first Highest amounts

11 Feb 2026 Disney DTC, LLC und ABC Enterprises, Inc. (The Walt Disney Company)California: $2.75 million against Disney over incomplete opt-outs for streaming USA, CACookies and tracking €2.31m

Disney implemented objections to the sale and sharing of data only for individual services or devices rather than across the whole account, continued to disclose data via embedded ad-tech providers and offered no opt-out in connected TV apps. It was the largest CCPA settlement at the time of the agreement with the Attorney General of California.

What organisations can take from it

An opt-out must take effect across all services, devices and integrated third-party providers of an account.

Authority / court: Attorney General of California (California Department of Justice)
Area of law: Data protection · Cookies and tracking
Legal basis: California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA)
Action: Fine
Status of proceedings: final
Sector: Media and online platforms
Employees: 10,000 or more
Published: 11 Feb 2026

Original amount 2,750,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 11 Feb 2026.

Sources

California Won't Let It Go: Attorney General Bonta Announces $2.75 Million Settlement with Disney Press release of an authority
Final Judgment and Permanent Injunction, People v. Disney DTC, LLC et al., LA Superior Court 26STCV04425 Court decision

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

Report an error

1 Jul 2025 Healthline Media LLCCalifornia: $1.55 million against Healthline over disclosure of illness-related article titles USA, CACookies and tracking €1.31m

Despite objections, the health portal continued to pass data to advertising partners and transmitted article titles suggestive of diagnoses for targeted advertising; the consent banner did not stop the tracking. In addition, the required contractual clauses with advertising partners were missing. The settlement was reached with the Attorney General of California.

What organisations can take from it

Test consent banners technically: if rejecting does not actually switch off tracking, that is misleading and unlawful.

Authority / court: Attorney General of California (California Department of Justice)
Area of law: Data protection · Cookies and tracking
Legal basis: California Consumer Privacy Act (CCPA), Unfair Competition Law
Action: Fine
Status of proceedings: final
Sector: Media and online platforms
Published: 1 Jul 2025

Original amount 1,550,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Jul 2025.

Sources

Attorney General Bonta Announces Largest CCPA Settlement to Date, Secures $1.55 Million from Healthline.com Press release of an authority

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

Report an error

10 Jan 2025 Vince McMahon (ehem. Executive Chairman und CEO der World Wrestling Entertainment Inc.)WWE founder McMahon conceals settlement payments from the board and auditors USADisclosure and reporting obligations €1.68m

In 2019 and 2022, the former Executive Chairman and CEO Vince McMahon concluded settlements of 3 million and 7.5 million USD on behalf of WWE without informing the board, the legal department, the accounting function or the auditors; WWE had to restate its financial statements. McMahon is paying a civil penalty of 400,000 USD and reimbursing WWE 1,330,915.90 USD under SOX 304(a).

What organisations can take from it

Payments and settlements that personally concern top management must never be concluded without involving the board and the finance function.

Authority / court: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Area of law: Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
Legal basis: Securities Exchange Act 1934 (Umgehung interner Kontrollen, irreführende Angaben gegenüber Prüfern); Sarbanes-Oxley Act Section 304(a)
Action: Fine
Status of proceedings: final
Sector: Media and online platforms
Liability of senior managers: Vince McMahon (former Executive Chairman and CEO): 400,000 USD penalty and reimbursement of 1,330,915.90 USD to WWE

Original amount 1,730,915.9 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 10 Jan 2025.

Sources

Vince McMahon, Former CEO of WWE, Charged for Failure to Disclose to WWE Two Settlement Agreements He Executed on Behalf of WWE Press release of an authority

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

Report an error

3 Jan 2025 GGL Projects, Inc. (Sitejabber)Sitejabber: review platform counted reviews before goods were received USAFake reviews Order

According to the FTC, the AI-powered review platform collected star ratings for its business customers at the time of purchase, before customers had received the product or service, thereby inflating average ratings and review counts, including in search engine results. The FTC issued a final settlement order prohibiting such misrepresentations.

What organisations can take from it

Ratings submitted before use must not be included in averages as experience-based reviews.

Authority / court: Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
Area of law: Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews
Legal basis: Section 5 FTC Act
Action: Order
Status of proceedings: final
Sector: Media and online platforms
Published: 3 Jan 2025

Sources

FTC Approves Final Order against Sitejabber Press release of an authority
FTC Case: Sitejabber (In the Matter of GGL Projects, Inc.) Enforcement database of an authority

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

Report an error

28 Sep 2023 Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings Inc.Clear Channel Outdoor: 26.1 million USD – gifts and hospitality for Chinese officials USABribery of public officials €24.8m

From at least 2012 to 2017, the Chinese majority-owned subsidiary Clear Media bribed officials with expensive gifts and hospitality and used sham intermediaries and false invoices to fund concealed consultants in order to obtain advertising space, for example at bus stops; the payments were booked as entertainment, cleaning and customer development expenses. Despite repeated warnings from internal audit, adequate controls were lacking until 2019; Clear Channel paid 16,355,567 USD in disgorgement, 3,760,920 USD in interest and a civil penalty of 6 million USD (a total of 26,116,487 USD).

What organisations can take from it

Internal audit findings on entertainment and consultancy costs in high-risk markets must lead to immediate controls.

Relevance to training and awareness

Gifts and hospitality for public officials; correct booking

Authority / court: U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC)
Area of law: Bribery and corruption · Bribery of public officials
Legal basis: Foreign Corrupt Practices Act (Anti-Bribery, Books and Records, Internal Accounting Controls)
Action: Fine
Status of proceedings: final
Sector: Media and online platforms

Original amount 26,116,487 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 28 Sep 2023.

Sources

SEC Charges Clear Channel Outdoor with FCPA Violations Relating to China Subsidiary (28.09.2023) Press release of an authority
SEC Order Instituting Cease-and-Desist Proceedings, In the Matter of Clear Channel Outdoor Holdings, Inc., Release No. 34-98615 (28.09.2023) Decision of an authority

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

Report an error

How the radar is compiled

Official sources only

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

Four-eyes check

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

Comparable amounts

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

Corrections on record

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

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

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

Embed the radar on your website

Who was sanctioned, and for what?

Ready for training that sticks?