Compliance Radar
Who was sanctioned, and for what?
Fines, court rulings and incidents from Europe and North America: 718 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 companyWhen?
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 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2026 | 1 | €25,500 |
| Q2 2026 | 1 | €13m |
| Q3 2026 | 1 | — |
5 cases
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
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
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