Who was sanctioned, and for what?

In 2022–2024, the delivery service used a standard clause to prohibit restaurants from being cheaper on their own channels than on Wolt, while at the same time being able to grant discounts without consultation and to compensate customers up to 400 DKK at the restaurants’ expense. The Konkurrencerådet (Danish Competition Council) ordered the practice to cease, required Wolt to inform all restaurants and intends to enforce a fine through the courts.

Authority / court

Konkurrencerådet (Danish Competition Council)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Konkurrenceloven; AEUV Art. 102

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

26 Aug 2026

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

The Agência Nacional de Proteção de Dados (ANPD, Brazilian data protection authority) imposed three fines totalling 153,769,671.33 BRL on ByteDance Brasil Tecnologia Ltda., which operates TikTok in Brazil (63,176,686.67 BRL each for breaches of Art. 7 and Art. 6 VIII LGPD, and 27,416,297.99 BRL for Art. 6 X LGPD). According to the decision, data of children and adolescents were processed without a valid legal basis both in the feed available without registration and when accounts were created, and effective preventive and accountability measures were lacking. The authority also ordered the deletion of data of registered adolescents aged 13 to 18 whose legal representation is not regularised within 60 working days, backed by a daily penalty of 137,081.49 BRL for each day of delay.

Authority / court

Agência Nacional de Proteção de Dados (ANPD), Superintendência de Fiscalização

Area of law

Data protection

Legal basis

Art. 6 VIII, Art. 6 X und Art. 7 LGPD (Lei nº 13.709/2018); Sanktionen nach Art. 52 LGPD; Resolução CD/ANPD nº 4/2023 (Regulamento de Dosimetria)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

25 Aug 2026

Original amount 153,769,671.33 BRL, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Aug 2026.

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

Despite promising no hidden fees, the travel app, according to the FTC, charged tips and fees for a VIP support service without consent because they were hidden and pre-selected, and misled users about total prices and the benefits of VIP support and price freezing. The court order against the Canadian Hopper Inc. and its US subsidiary sets 35 million USD, payable in twelve instalments. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

2 Jul 2026

Original amount 35,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 20 Aug 2026.

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

The Nederlandse Arbeidsinspectie (Netherlands Labour Authority) imposed fines totalling 153,300 EUR on a platform for freelancers and nine companies that used it to deploy foreign workers without a right to work in hospitality and education: 146,500 EUR under the Wav (Foreign Nationals Employment Act) (platform 66,000 EUR, the nine hirers 4,000 to 27,000 EUR each, together 80,500 EUR) and 6,800 EUR under the Waadi (Placement of Personnel by Intermediaries Act) (platform 3,400 EUR, two hirers 2,000 and 1,400 EUR). The platform regarded itself merely as an intermediary; based on how it actually operated, the Labour Authority classed it as an employer under the broad Wav definition.

Authority / court

Nederlandse Arbeidsinspectie

Area of law

Health and safety and employment law · Minimum wage and undeclared work

Legal basis

Wet arbeid vreemdelingen (Wav); Wet allocatie arbeidskrachten door intermediairs (Waadi)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

13 Aug 2026

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

SNOW Japan, to which South Korea's Snow Corporation had left decisions on advertising content in Japan for the jointly offered service, had users of X publish posts about the AI image functions of the 'SNOW' app from April 2025 onwards, for payment and following its instructions, without making the commission recognisable; the posts were treated as advertising by both companies. On 6 August 2026 each of them received an order to stop the display of posts still online, inform consumers and take measures to prevent recurrence.

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. 3 (Bekanntmachung zu Stealth-Marketing) 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

Media and online platforms

Published

6 Aug 2026

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

In the programme ‘Sport aktuell’ on ORF 1 on 29 July 2025, a logo wall was visible as product placement without being labelled. The Austrian Communications Authority (Kommunikationsbehörde Austria, KommAustria) found, with final effect, a violation of the ORF Act (ORF-Gesetz).

Authority / court

Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

§ 16 Abs. 5 Z 4 ORF-G

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

29 Jul 2026

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

On 24 July 2026 Arcom imposed a fine of EUR 200,000 on Société d'exploitation d'un service d'information (SESI), the operator of the news channel CNews. In Arcom's view, two programmes broadcast in June and September 2025 contained statements about people of (presumed) immigrant background and Muslims, without sufficient context or challenge, that were capable of inciting hatred and discrimination; Arcom considered this a breach of Article 15 of Law No 86-1067 and of the channel's contractual obligations on non-discrimination and control of its programming. In setting the amount, Arcom took into account earlier sanctions against SESI for breaches of the same obligations in 2021 and 2024. Arcom did not sanction a third programme it examined. Whether the decision has been appealed is not known here.

Authority / court

Autorité de régulation de la communication audiovisuelle et numérique (Arcom)

Area of law

Other

Legal basis

Art. 15, 42-1 und 42-2 Loi n° 86-1067 du 30 septembre 1986 (liberté de communication); Art. 2-2-1 und 2-3-2 der Vereinbarungen vom 27. November 2019 und 10. Dezember 2024

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Repeat case

yes

Published

29 Jul 2026

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

At the request of the press association Alliance de la Presse d’Information Générale (APIG), the Autorité de la concurrence (French Competition Authority) imposed interim measures on Meta because its conduct in negotiations on remuneration for press publishers’ neighbouring rights could amount to an abuse of a dominant position. Meta must negotiate in good faith on remuneration for all Meta services from 1 February 2025, provide the information needed for the assessment within 15 days, must not degrade the display of press content during the negotiations and must report to the authority monthly. On the same day a similar decision (26-MC-02) was issued at the request of the collective management organisation DVP.

Authority / court

Autorité de la concurrence

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. L. 464-1 Code de commerce (mesures conservatoires); vorläufige Würdigung nach Art. L. 420-2 Code de commerce und Art. 102 AEUV; Art. L. 218-4 Code de la propriété intellectuelle

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

under appeal

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

8 Jul 2026

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

In its flight booking flow, Agoda Company Pte. Ltd. did not show clearly whether a ticket was refundable and which cancellation or change fees applied – the information could only be reached via a link to baggage rules – and, for accommodation paid later, displayed a price without the possible surcharge of up to 5%, partly in a foreign currency. The authority regarded this as a breach of the duty to explain key terms under the Telecommunications Business Act (전기통신사업법), imposed a fine of 2,424,000,000 KRW and ordered Agoda to show conditions, fees and final prices early and clearly, to check screen flows internally in advance and to have Korean translations reviewed by professionals.

Authority / court

Korea Media and Communications Commission (KMCC, 방송미디어통신위원회)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail

Legal basis

Telecommunications Business Act (전기통신사업법) Art. 50(1) Nr. 5-2, Art. 52, Art. 53; Enforcement Decree Art. 42 i. V. m. Anhang 4

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Repeat case

no

Mitigating circumstances

Reduction of 10% because the authority had not imposed a fine in the preceding three years; partial voluntary corrections made after the investigation began were not accepted as a mitigating factor.

Published

6 Jul 2026

Original amount 2,424,000,000 KRW, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Jul 2026.

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

After the Facebook page of the Danish fashion retailer Clothing By Ros ApS was hacked in 2023, Meta failed to respond appropriately for almost two years, gave no reasons for the de facto suspension and offered no effective complaint-handling procedure. The Konkurrencerådet (Danish Competition Council) found infringements of the P2B Regulation and ordered Meta to comply with the rules on statements of reasons and complaint handling in future.

Authority / court

Konkurrencerådet (Danish Competition Council)

Area of law

AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations

Legal basis

Verordnung (EU) 2019/1150 (P2B) Art. 4, Art. 11

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

24 Jun 2026

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

The ticket exchange did not include mandatory fees in the total price at the start of the purchasing process. By way of a final infringement notice, the CMA imposed a penalty of 889,200 GBP (including a 40 % settlement discount) and required the company to refund the mandatory fees.

Authority / court

Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Mitigating circumstances

Settlement with a 40 % discount and waiver of appeal.

Published

23 Jun 2026

Original amount 889,200 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Jun 2026.

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

On 17 June 2026 the Competition Commission (Hong Kong's competition authority) accepted a commitment from Kangaroo Limited, which operates the Keeta food delivery platform in Hong Kong and is a subsidiary of Meituan. The authority was concerned that clauses in Keeta's agreements with partner restaurants made access harder for new and small platforms and softened competition – a possible breach of the First Conduct Rule (the ban on anti-competitive agreements). Keeta had already amended the agreements voluntarily (cooperation with platforms of up to 10% market share without losing incentives, easier switching, no bar on lower prices on the restaurants' own channels and on rival platforms); with the acceptance, these changes are legally binding and enforceable by the authority until 28 December 2026.

Authority / court

Competition Commission (Hongkong)

Area of law

Competition law

Legal basis

Competition Ordinance (Cap. 619), s. 6 (First Conduct Rule); Annahme einer Verpflichtungszusage nach s. 60

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

17 Jun 2026

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

The European Commission ordered Meta to restore access for rival general-purpose AI assistants to the WhatsApp for Business interface on the terms in place before 15 October 2025, i.e. free of charge, and to maintain it until the final decision. The Commission found a prima facie abuse of a dominant position in consumer communication apps, because Meta had first excluded third-party assistants and later charged a fee with practically the same effect; the measures had to be implemented within five working days.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV; Art. 54 EWR-Abkommen; Art. 8 Abs. 1 VO (EG) Nr. 1/2003

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

9 Jun 2026

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

On 7 November 2025, the publisher's news portals Origo and Magyar Nemzet linked to a map, created by unknown persons, containing the names, addresses, telephone numbers, email addresses, geo-coordinates and political preferences of Tisza sympathisers; Ripost showed an image with the name of the map. The Hungarian data protection authority (Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság, NAIH) found intentional infringements of Art. 6 and 9 GDPR, prohibited further dissemination and imposed 50 million HUF.

Authority / court

Nemzeti Adatvédelmi és Információszabadság Hatóság (NAIH)

Area of law

Data protection

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 9 Abs. 1, Art. 58 Abs. 2 lit. b und f

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Culpability

intentional

Published

26 May 2026

Original amount 50,000,000 HUF, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 May 2026.

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

The publisher kept data of around 685,000 former book club members in a ‘passive database’, in around 395,000 cases more than ten years after they had left, without any deletion rules. The Danish Data Protection Agency (Datatilsynet) had recommended a fine of 1 million DKK in 2022; the case was closed on 14 April 2026 with a fine notice whose amount is not stated in the source.

Authority / court

Anklagemyndigheden (Bødeforelæg) auf Anzeige der Datatilsynet

Area of law

Data protection

Legal basis

DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. e, Art. 5 Abs. 2

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperative conduct; only two employees had access to the passive database; deletion after the supervisory visit.

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

According to the FTC, StubHub displayed ticket prices on its website without clearly and conspicuously stating up front the total price including all mandatory fees. The court order relies on the new FTC rule against unfair or deceptive fees and requires StubHub to pay 10 million USD for consumer refunds. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.

Authority / court

Federal Trade Commission (FTC)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing

Legal basis

Section 5 FTC Act; Rule on Unfair or Deceptive Fees (16 C.F.R. Part 464)

Action

Disgorgement of profits

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

9 Apr 2026

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

According to the AGCM, the review platform did not adequately check whether reviews – including those labelled as "verified" – were genuine, and allowed companies to invite specifically selected customers to leave reviews via paid services, which undermined the representativeness of the star ratings. In addition, information on how the platform works and on paid services was lacking; the authority also saw dark pattern elements in this.

Authority / court

Autorità Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato (AGCM)

Area of law

Consumer protection and online retail · Fake reviews

Legal basis

Artt. 20, 21, 22 e 23, comma 1, lett. bb-ter Codice del Consumo

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

23 Mar 2026

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

From March 2020 to May 2021, the operator of ss.lv/ss.com (market share over 60%) deleted advertisements and blocked accounts of users – mainly car dealers and estate agents – who also advertised on the competing platform pp.lv; anyone wishing to register with an inbox.lv address additionally had to provide a different e-mail address. The Konkurences padome (Latvian Competition Council) considered this an abuse of a dominant position (Art. 102 TFEU), imposed 186,780.65 EUR and required objective criteria for dealing with customers.

Authority / court

Konkurences padome (Lettischer Wettbewerbsrat)

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

18 Mar 2026

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

The ICO fined Reddit, Inc. £14,472,500. The regulator found that the platform did not use any robust age assurance and therefore had no lawful basis for processing the personal data of children under 13. The ICO also found that Reddit had not carried out a data protection impact assessment on the risks to children before January 2025. The ICO found infringements of Articles 5(1)(a), 6, 8 and 35 UK GDPR.

Authority / court

Information Commissioner's Office (ICO)

Area of law

Data protection

Legal basis

Art. 5(1)(a), 6, 8 und 35 UK GDPR; section 155 DPA 2018

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Original amount 14,472,500 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 23 Feb 2026.

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

Since 2019, the delivery platform had required scans or photos of its users’ identity cards and passports in cases of suspected fraud, relying on legitimate interests. The Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (President of Poland’s data protection authority, UODO) regarded this as processing without a legal basis and a breach of data minimisation, imposed 5,898,064 PLN and ordered the processing to stop and the data to be erased.

Authority / court

Prezes Urzędu Ochrony Danych Osobowych (UODO)

Area of law

Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency

Legal basis

Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und c, Art. 5 Abs. 2, Art. 6 Abs. 1 DSGVO (DKN.5112.33.2022)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Media and online platforms

Published

16 Mar 2026

Original amount 5,898,064 PLN, converted at the ECB reference rate of 19 Feb 2026.

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