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.
Click a bar to drill down one level.
Where?
by countryWhat for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
Who?
by company- Ö Aktiengesellschaft (in der Entscheidung abgekürzt; Adressverlag und Direktwerbeunternehmen) €13m 99 % · 1 case
- Ronny Pecik (Unternehmer) €60,000 0 % · 1 case
- D*** GmbH (Digitalmarketing- und Recruitingagentur, anonymisiert) €25,500 0 % · 1 case
- B GmbH (in der Entscheidung anonymisiert) €6,000 0 % · 1 case
- B KG (in der Entscheidung anonymisiert) €850 0 % · 1 case
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2024 | 1 | €100,000 |
| Q1 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2025 | 1 | — |
| Q3 2025 | 2 | €60,850 |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2026 | 2 | €31,500 |
| Q2 2026 | 1 | €13m |
| Q3 2026 | 2 | €30,000 |
9 cases
20 Aug 2026 Tax adviser uses firm's account for third-party payments: 30,000 EUR FMA penalty upheld €30,000
From December 2022, an auditor and tax adviser processed payments of another limited company totalling around 1.26 million EUR through the bank account of his tax advisory company, which was held as an own account, without disclosing this to the bank – according to the court, deliberately in order to avoid a compliance review. The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) upheld the fine of 30,000 EUR imposed on him by the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht, FMA) in its penalty decision of 27 November 2025, in his capacity as managing director of the account-holding company, which is liable for the penalty; an ordinary appeal on points of law is not admissible.
Customers also have obligations under anti-money laundering law: anyone channelling third-party funds through an own account must disclose this to the bank.
Disclosure obligations as a bank customer for trust and pass-through payments
- Authority / court
- Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 27.11.2025
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
- Legal basis
- § 6 Abs. 3 FM-GwG (Offenlegung des Handelns auf fremde Rechnung) i. V. m. § 34 Abs. 5 FM-GwG; § 9 Abs. 1 und 7 VStG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Other
- Culpability
- intentional
- Liability of senior managers
- Fine imposed on the managing director personally; liability of the company under Section 9(7) VStG (Austrian Administrative Penal Act)
- BVwG W607 2331234-1 vom 20.08.2026 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Jul 2026 BGH: online cancellation page must not offer a "pause contract" alternative Order
On the confirmation page of its online cancellation process, a gym operator displayed a highlighted notice with the button "Pause contract via self-service"; in addition, the confirmation button was labelled "Find contract", which the defendant had already acknowledged. In an action brought by the Federation of German Consumer Organisations (Verbraucherzentrale Bundesverband), the BGH ruled that the confirmation page may only contain the information required for the cancellation and the confirmation button, set aside the judgment of the Higher Regional Court of Düsseldorf (OLG Düsseldorf) dismissing the action to that extent and ordered the operator to cease and desist.
Keep retention or pause offers off the confirmation page of the online cancellation process.
Design of the cancellation process (cancellation button, retention offers)
- Authority / court
- Bundesgerichtshof (I. Zivilsenat), Az. I ZR 200/25
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
- Legal basis
- § 312k Abs. 1 Satz 1, Abs. 2 BGB (Kündigungsbutton)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Other
- Published
- 16 Jul 2026
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Jun 2026 Ö Aktiengesellschaft (in der Entscheidung abgekürzt; Adressverlag und Direktwerbeunternehmen)VwGH sets data protection fine for party affinities definitively at 13 million EUR €13m
The company had stored statistically calculated ‘party affinities’ for around 2.2 million people and in some cases sold them to advertising clients – special categories of personal data without consent; in addition, parcel frequency data was further processed for incompatible purposes. The Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) had imposed 18 million EUR in 2019 and the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) 16 million EUR in 2024; Austria's Supreme Administrative Court (Verwaltungsgerichtshof, VwGH) has now set the fine with final effect at 13 million EUR (plus 100,000 EUR in procedural costs).
Calculated characteristics such as political leanings are themselves special categories – companies that derive them for advertising need explicit consent.
- Authority / court
- Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Ausgangsbescheid: Datenschutzbehörde)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Marketing and consent
- Legal basis
- DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und b, Art. 6 Abs. 4, Art. 9 Abs. 1 (VwGH Ro 2025/04/0007)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- reduced
- Sector
- Other
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- Comprehensive cooperation, deletion of the party affinities, settlements with data subjects, long duration of proceedings (5 years, 10 months).
- Published
- 16 Jul 2026
- VwGH 24.06.2026, Ro 2025/04/0007 Court decision
- VwGH bestätigt unrechtmäßige Verarbeitung von Partei-Affinitäten und setzt Geldbuße mit EUR 13 Mio. fest Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
13 Feb 2026 B GmbH (in der Entscheidung anonymisiert)LVwG Lower Austria: penalty for exceeding permitted waste volumes reduced €6,000
A treatment facility for non-hazardous waste was permitted for a maximum of 150,000 t of annual deliveries and 60,000 t of storage, but accepted around 188,000 t and 224,000 t in 2021 and 2022 respectively and at times stored 173,000 t. The Lower Austria Regional Administrative Court (Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich, LVwG) upheld the penalty imposed on the responsible officer for modifying the facility without a permit but reduced the fine from 8,400 to 6,000 EUR (LVwG-S-1039/004-2024).
Permitted throughput and storage volumes are binding; those who accept more are modifying the facility in a way that requires a permit and are personally liable as the responsible officer.
Monitoring permitted volumes and capacities in plant operation
- Authority / court
- Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Straferkenntnis der Bezirkshauptmannschaft Baden)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- § 79 Abs. 1 Z 9 i. V. m. § 37 Abs. 3 Z 5 AWG 2002; § 9 Abs. 2 VStG i. V. m. § 26 Abs. 6 AWG 2002
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- reduced
- Sector
- Other
- Repeat case
- yes
- Mitigating circumstances
- Disproportionately long proceedings (§ 34 (2) StGB, Austrian Criminal Code) as the only mitigating factor; the officer's relevant previous convictions were an aggravating factor.
- Liability of senior managers
- The penalty was imposed on the company's responsible officer appointed under § 9 (2) VStG.
- LVwG Niederösterreich, 13.02.2026, LVwG-S-1039/004-2024 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
19 Jan 2026 D*** GmbH (Digitalmarketing- und Recruitingagentur, anonymisiert)Recruitment agency: 25,500 EUR for secretly recorded calls with applicants €25,500
The agency conducted telephone pre-screening interviews with applicants on behalf of client companies, recorded them without valid consent, stored them indefinitely and presented itself as the client company in doing so. The Austrian Data Protection Authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 25,500 EUR (plus 2,550 EUR in costs) for lack of a legal basis and transparency; the company has lodged an appeal against the amount of the fine with the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht).
Call recordings in recruitment need a genuine legal basis and clear information about who is actually responsible.
Recording of telephone calls and applicant data
- Authority / court
- Datenschutzbehörde
- Area of law
- Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
- Legal basis
- DSGVO Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a, c und e, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 12, 13
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Other
- Employees
- Under 50
- Mitigating circumstances
- No relevant previous violations, cooperation in the proceedings; adjustment of the starting amount to the company's small size.
- Datenschutzbehörde, Straferkenntnis 2025-1.049.138 vom 19.01.2026 Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Aug 2025 Ronny Pecik (Unternehmer)Diversion: businessman Pecik pays around 60,000 EUR over benefits for a Finance Ministry secretary general €60,000
In the CASAG set of proceedings, the businessman was charged with having granted a head of cabinet and later secretary general at the Austrian Federal Ministry of Finance (BMF) benefits worth around 17,000 EUR (use of luxury cars, tailor-made suits) in order to obtain goodwill in official business. After he accepted responsibility, the proceedings were concluded with final effect by way of diversion (discontinuation without a conviction) against payment of around 60,000 EUR.
Even benefits in kind to ministry officials, such as the use of cars or clothing, can be punishable as "Anfüttern" (grooming officials) – rules on gifts must also apply to owners.
Gifts and benefits in kind to civil servants (grooming officials)
- Authority / court
- Wirtschafts- und Korruptionsstaatsanwaltschaft (WKStA); Landesgericht für Strafsachen Wien
- Area of law
- Bribery and corruption · Gifts, hospitality and benefits
- Legal basis
- § 307a StGB (Vorteilszuwendung); Diversion nach StPO
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Other
- Culpability
- intentional
- Liability of senior managers
- Personal responsibility of the businessman Ronny Pecik (diversion without a finding of guilt).
- Published
- 8 Aug 2025
- Verfahrenskomplex CASAG: Diversion im Verfahren wegen Vorteilszuwendung Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
31 Jul 2025 B KG (in der Entscheidung anonymisiert)LVwG Lower Austria: penalty for illegal acceptance of 258 t of waste from Hungary upheld €850
In September 2022, the KG (limited partnership) accepted 257.78 tonnes of wastewater from the glycerine treatment of a Hungarian biodiesel plant which, because of its methanol content (2.2 %), was subject to notification as hazardous waste but was shipped to Austria without notification and consent. The Lower Austria Regional Administrative Court (Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich, LVwG) upheld the fine of 850 EUR against the partner authorised to represent the company, set aside the second count (collection without a permit) and discontinued the proceedings in that respect (LVwG-S-512/001-2025).
The recipient of cross-border waste must also check before acceptance whether the shipment has been notified and authorised – otherwise management is personally liable.
Checking notification requirements for cross-border waste deliveries
- Authority / court
- Landesverwaltungsgericht Niederösterreich (Straferkenntnis der Bezirkshauptmannschaft Wiener Neustadt)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability · Waste and hazardous substances
- Legal basis
- § 79 Abs. 1 Z 15b i. V. m. § 69 AWG 2002; Art. 2 Nr. 35 Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1013/2006 (Abfallverbringung); § 9 Abs. 1 VStG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- reduced
- Sector
- Other
- Liability of senior managers
- The penalty was imposed on the partner with unlimited liability as the person appointed to represent the company externally under § 9 (1) VStG (Austrian Administrative Penal Act).
- LVwG Niederösterreich, 31.07.2025, LVwG-S-512/001-2025 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
11 Apr 2025 OGH: gyms may not impose fee increases by way of deemed consent Order
Two gym operators announced a fee increase of 6 EUR a month and treated silence or the failure to exercise a special right of termination as consent. In an action brought by the Austrian Federal Chamber of Labour (Bundesarbeitskammer), the OGH upheld the prohibition of such increases without express agreement and the publication of the judgment; it dismissed claims for repayment and information.
Price increases in ongoing consumer contracts require genuine consent – silence is not enough.
- Authority / court
- Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH), GZ 4 Ob 51/25s
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Information duties in online retail
- Legal basis
- § 6 Abs. 1 Z 2, § 28a KSchG; §§ 1a, 14 UWG
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Other
- OGH 4 Ob 51/25s vom 11.04.2025 (RIS Justiz) Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Oct 2024 OGH: 100,000 EUR gun-jumping fine for premature start of a mask production joint venture €100,000
A textile company started operations with a joint venture (H* GmbH) for the production of protective masks on 24 April 2020, before the notifiable concentration had been cleared; the infringement lasted until 25 May 2020. The Cartel Court imposed a fine of 5,000 EUR; the OGH increased the fine to 100,000 EUR.
The standstill obligation applies even in emergencies such as the pandemic – a joint venture may only start operating after clearance.
Standstill obligation before clearance (gun-jumping), including in crisis situations
- Authority / court
- Oberster Gerichtshof als Kartellobergericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- § 29 Z 1 lit a iVm § 17 Abs 1 KartG 2005
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Other
- Culpability
- intentional
- OGH 16 Ok 4/24k vom 16.10.2024 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link