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 authority- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission) €211,657 100 % · 2 cases
- Information Regulator (South Africa) – 0 % · 1 case
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by company- Anonymised companies €211,657 100 % · 3 cases
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | €77,886 |
| 2023 | 0 | – |
| 2024 | 2 | €133,771 |
| 2025 | 0 | – |
| 2026 | 0 | – |
3 cases
10 Sep 2024 a major US messaging serviceUS messaging service: order to revise its privacy policy for South Africa Order
The regulator found that the messaging service's revised privacy policy applicable in South Africa – unlike the European version – did not set out adequate legal bases and purposes, that consent obtained by making acceptance a condition of use was not voluntary, that sharing data with companies of its own group and third parties amounted to impermissible further processing, and that the service had demonstrated neither compliance with its documentation duty nor appropriate security safeguards. The enforcement notice of 10 September 2024 required the provider, among other things, to bring the policy into line with POPIA, submit a personal information impact assessment and maintain a risk register; according to the regulator (as of 13 November 2025), a court review brought by the provider was resolved by a settlement on additional transparency information, which is to be made an order of court.
Global privacy policies must set out legal bases and purposes for each jurisdiction – agreement required as a condition of use is not voluntary consent.
Voluntary consent and transparent privacy notices
- Authority / court
- Information Regulator (South Africa)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
- Legal basis
- Sections 8, 9, 11, 13, 15, 17 und 19 Protection of Personal Information Act 4 of 2013 (POPIA); Enforcement Notice nach Section 95 POPIA; Section 51 PAIA (Dokumentation)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Information Regulator (South Africa), Veröffentlichung der Behörde (Entscheidung 2024) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 10 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
13 Feb 2024 a South African outdoor advertising companyCompetition Tribunal: ZAR 2.7m against outdoor advertiser over industry code of practice €133,771
According to the Competition Commission, members of an outdoor advertising association set uniform cancellation fees (75% of the remaining contract), credits for sub-standard illumination, charges for late delivery of material and fees for removing posters in a code of practice from around 2004 to 2018 (fixing of prices and trading conditions). In a settlement without admission of liability, the outdoor advertising division of a media company pays ZAR 2,717,950 in twelve instalments and provides free advertising worth ZAR 1,358,976 to ten small businesses owned by historically disadvantaged persons.
An association code that sets fees and contract terms for all members can amount to price fixing; association work must be subject to competition law oversight.
Cartel risks in trade associations and industry codes
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Competition Act 89 of 1998, s. 4(1)(b)(i); ss. 49D, 58(1)(a)(iii), 58(1)(b)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Mitigating circumstances
- Settlement without admission of liability; payment in instalments.
- Published
- 13 Feb 2024
Original amount 2,717,950 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 13 Feb 2024.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 13 Feb 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
14 Nov 2022 a South African outdoor advertising companyAdvertising cartel: outdoor media firm pays penalty for coordinated agency discounts €77,886
On 14 November 2022 the Competition Tribunal (South Africa's competition adjudicator) confirmed a settlement in which a media company admitted price fixing: media companies had agreed, through a common industry body, on similar settlement discounts and payment terms for advertising agencies and used a common intermediary to risk-assess the agencies. The company pays an administrative penalty of 1,389,438 ZAR, contributes a further 500,198 ZAR to a fund supporting small Black-owned media and advertising agencies and will cooperate in the continuing proceedings; on the company's behalf, a corporate group will give such agencies bonus advertising space worth up to 1,000,000 ZAR a year for three years.
Discounts and payment terms agreed through an industry body are still price fixing – each company must set its customer terms independently.
Competition law: common terms set through industry associations
- Authority / court
- Competition Tribunal of South Africa (auf Antrag der Competition Commission)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- Section 4(1)(b)(i) Competition Act 89 of 1998
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Published
- 17 Nov 2022
Original amount 1,389,438 ZAR, converted at the ECB reference rate of 14 Nov 2022.
Checked against the official source on 8 Oct 2026 · Company name anonymised since 14 Nov 2024 · Direct link