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 regionAll jurisdictions
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
- Sanctions and export control 8 cases 26 % · €295m
- Competition law 7 cases 23 % · €68.1m
- Other 5 cases 16 % · €92.9m
- Data protection 3 cases 10 % · €102,784
- Bribery and corruption 3 cases 10 % · €357.3m
- Capital markets and financial supervision 2 cases 6 % · €2.56m
- AI and digital regulation 1 case 3 % ·
- Environment and sustainability 1 case 3 % · €6,238
- Consumer protection and online retail 1 case 3 % · €4.25m
Who?
by company- Anonymised companies 10 cases 33 % · €306.8m
- „Вазовски машиностроителни заводи“ ЕАД (VMZ) 1 case 3 % · €50,855
- Aero Turbine Inc.; Gallant Capital Partners LLC 1 case 3 % · €1.53m
- BAE Systems, Inc. 1 case 3 % · €31.3m
- Britisches Exportunternehmen, Militärgüter (anonymisiert) 1 case 3 % · €3.74m
- Department of National Defence (Kanada) 1 case 3 % · €6,238
- Electro Optic Systems Holdings Limited 1 case 3 % · €2.41m
- Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. 1 case 3 % ·
- General Electric Company 1 case 3 % · €30.5m
- L3 Technologies Inc. 1 case 3 % · €54.8m
- 11 more11 cases
When?
per year, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| 2022 | 1 | €150,000 |
| 2023 | 4 | €14.7m |
| 2024 | 7 | €630.3m |
| 2025 | 10 | €97.4m |
| 2026 | 9 | €77.5m |
31 cases
4 Aug 2026 BAE Systems, Inc.DDTC: USD 36 million against BAE Systems for ITAR violations, including a China link €31.3m
The DDTC settled with BAE Systems, Inc. for a civil penalty of USD 36 million. The allegations concerned unauthorised exports and retransfers of defence articles to several countries, in one case to the People's Republic of China, the unauthorised furnishing of defence services and breaches of authorisation provisos. USD 18 million is suspended for approved compliance measures and USD 18 million is payable in three instalments; the agreement requires, among other things, an external compliance audit. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.
Retransfers by recipients must be controlled contractually and organisationally just as strictly as one's own exports.
ITAR compliance: retransfers, defence services and authorisation provisos
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC)
- Area of law
- Sanctions and export control · Export control and dual-use goods
- Legal basis
- Arms Export Control Act § 38 (22 U.S.C. § 2778); ITAR, 22 C.F.R. Parts 120–130, insbesondere Part 127 und § 128.11
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Mitigating circumstances
- The company reported the matters in voluntary disclosures and in response to a disclosure directed by the DDTC, and cooperated with the review.
Original amount 36,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 4 Aug 2026.
- U.S. Department of State, Order, In the Matter of BAE Systems, Inc. Decision of an authority
- U.S. Department of State, Consent Agreement, BAE Systems, Inc. Decision of an authority
- DDTC, Penalties & Oversight Agreements Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
18 Jun 2026 LOGZONE Inc.LOGZONE pays 507,144 USD over lack of cybersecurity in Navy contracts €442,495
The Huntsville-based defence services provider allegedly invoiced two Navy contracts from May 2021 to March 2025 even though it had not implemented the security controls under NIST SP 800-171 required by the contracts. The settlement under the False Claims Act with the U.S. Department of Justice amounts to 507,144 USD.
Companies that commit to cybersecurity requirements in government contracts must document their implementation verifiably – otherwise every invoice becomes a liability risk.
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Division) / USAO Northern District of Alabama
- Area of law
- Other
- Legal basis
- False Claims Act (31 U.S.C. §§ 3729 ff.); DFARS-Cybersicherheitsklauseln
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Published
- 18 Jun 2026
Original amount 507,144 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 18 Jun 2026.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Jun 2026 Securitas Sverige AktiebolagSecuritas Sverige: reprimand over cameras in company vehicles without legal basis Reprimand or warning
The security services provider used cameras in vehicles through which personal data was processed without any legal basis for doing so. The Swedish data protection authority (Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten, IMY) issued a reprimand under Art. 58 GDPR; no fine was imposed.
Dashcams in company cars also need a verified legal basis and a balancing against the interests of employees and passers-by.
Use of cameras in vehicles
- Authority / court
- Integritetsskyddsmyndigheten (IMY)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Video surveillance
- Legal basis
- DSGVO Art. 6 Abs. 1
- Action
- Reprimand or warning
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- IMY – Tillsyn Securitas Sverige Aktiebolag Decision of an authority
- IMY – Beslut Securitas Sverige AB Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
1 May 2026 Ultra Electronics Holdings Limited (vormals plc)Ultra Electronics: DPA of around 10.1 million GBP over bribery in Algeria and Oman €11.6m
The British defence supplier failed to prevent bribery by agents in connection with three public contracts in Oman and Algeria (including a contract with the Omani Ministry of Transport worth up to 200 million GBP). The DPA approved by Southwark Crown Court provides for a penalty of 10,083,150 GBP; in addition, the company is bearing around 4.8 million GBP of the SFO's investigation costs and must report on its compliance programme for three years.
Companies that use agents for government contracts must be able to demonstrate adequate procedures – otherwise the company is liable under Section 7 Bribery Act even without any intent to bribe on its own part.
Use of sales agents in public contracts
- Authority / court
- Serious Fraud Office (SFO)
- Area of law
- Bribery and corruption · Bribery of public officials
- Legal basis
- Section 7 Bribery Act 2010 (Failure to prevent bribery); Deferred Prosecution Agreement
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Culpability
- intentional
- Mitigating circumstances
- Self-report of the Algerian matters in 2018; restructuring of ownership and leadership; 45 % discount on the penalty.
- Published
- 1 May 2026
Original amount 10,083,150 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Apr 2026.
- SFO secures £10m from British defence supplier Press release of an authority
- SFO DPA with Ultra Electronics Holdings Limited (formerly plc) Decision of an authority
- Serious Fraud Office v Ultra Electronics Holdings [2026] EWCR 4 (Approved Judgment, 1 May 2026) Court decision
- SFO-Ultra Indictment (Crown Court at Southwark) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
30 Apr 2026 „Вазовски машиностроителни заводи“ ЕАД (VMZ)Arms manufacturer VMZ used a partner’s know-how for disposable grenade launchers – 50,855 EUR €50,855
On application by a client, the Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (Bulgarian Commission for the Protection of Competition, KZK) found that VMZ had used technical documentation on disposable grenade launchers that had been provided in confidence (trade secret) contrary to the confidentiality agreements and good commercial practice (Art. 37(1) ZZK – Bulgarian Protection of Competition Act). Sanction of 50,855.09 EUR and obligation to cease, with immediate enforceability. Appeals have been lodged against the decision.
Design documents provided in confidence may only be used within the agreed scope – especially in sensitive industries.
Handling confidential know-how of business partners
- Authority / court
- Комисия за защита на конкуренцията (КЗК, Bulgarische Wettbewerbskommission)
- Area of law
- Competition law
- Legal basis
- Art. 37 Abs. 1 ZZK (Geschäftsgeheimnisse)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Defence and security
- КЗК Публичен електронен регистър – Производство (Решение № 389 от 30.04.2026; Volltext als PDF im Register) Official register or notice
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Apr 2026 General Electric CompanyDDTC: USD 36 million against General Electric for technical data exports to China €30.5m
The DDTC settled with General Electric Company for a civil penalty of USD 36 million for ITAR violations: unauthorised exports of technical data to the People's Republic of China, breaches of authorisation provisos, unauthorised exports of defence articles and failure to report material changes to its ITAR registration. USD 18 million is suspended for approved compliance measures and USD 18 million is payable in three instalments. The authority allegedly made the findings set out here; this account is not based on a final judgment.
Changes to one's own ITAR registration must also be reported and belong in the compliance calendar.
ITAR registration and control of technical data with a China link
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of State, Directorate of Defense Trade Controls (DDTC)
- Area of law
- Sanctions and export control · Export control and dual-use goods
- Legal basis
- Arms Export Control Act § 38 (22 U.S.C. § 2778); ITAR, 22 C.F.R. Parts 120–130, insbesondere Part 127 und § 128.11
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Mitigating circumstances
- The allegations are based on facts that the company itself disclosed to the DDTC.
Original amount 36,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 17 Apr 2026.
- U.S. Department of State, Order, In the Matter of General Electric Company Decision of an authority
- DDTC, Penalties & Oversight Agreements Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Apr 2026 Electro Optic Systems Holdings LimitedElectro Optic Systems: 4 million AUD for late correction of revenue guidance €2.41m
The Federal Court of Australia, on application by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC, Australia's corporate, markets and financial services regulator), imposed an allegedly agreed penalty of 4 million AUD on the listed manufacturer of defence, space and communications technology. By 25 July 2022 the company knew that its 2022 revenue was likely to fall materially short of its published guidance of at least 212.3 million AUD, but did not correct the guidance until 31 October 2022; the court found a continuing breach of the continuous disclosure obligation.
Once it becomes apparent that published guidance will be materially missed, the correction must be disclosed without delay.
Continuous disclosure: handling deviations from guidance and escalating them internally to those responsible for disclosure
- Authority / court
- Federal Court of Australia (auf Antrag der Australian Securities and Investments Commission, ASIC)
- Area of law
- Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Corporations Act 2001 (Cth) s 674A(2) i. V. m. s 1317QA
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not set out here.
- Published
- 9 Apr 2026
Original amount 4,000,000 AUD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Apr 2026.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Feb 2026 Teledyne FLIR LLCTeledyne FLIR: thermal imaging cameras incorrectly assessed and supplied to Entity List address €846,453
The manufacturer of militarily relevant thermal imaging technology admitted 19 violations to the US Commerce Department's Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS): incorrect de minimis calculations for cameras that went to China via Sweden, pricing arranged with a Chinese drone manufacturer to circumvent the licence requirement, missing records and eight deliveries in 2024 to a Hong Kong address on the Entity List that the screening software did not detect.
Actively incorporate new forms of listing, such as address-only entries, into screening; do not rely solely on the software provider.
De minimis calculation, address-based Entity List entries in screening
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
- Area of law
- Sanctions and export control · Export control and dual-use goods
- Legal basis
- Export Administration Regulations, §§ 734.4 (De minimis), 744.16, 764.2(a), (b), (h), (i)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Mitigating circumstances
- Voluntary self-disclosures for some of the violations
- Published
- 26 Feb 2026
Original amount 1,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 26 Feb 2026.
- BIS Reaches Administrative Enforcement Settlement with Teledyne FLIR LLC and its affiliates (26.02.2026) Press release of an authority
- BIS Order Relating to Teledyne FLIR LLC (26.02.2026) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
24 Feb 2026 Vizocom ICTVizocom: blueprints for military antenna sent to China and copies supplied to the US Navy €317,971
The Californian dealer had won a Navy contract for 450 VHF/UHF antennas from a US manufacturer, but in 2019 uploaded the export-controlled production specifications of the purely military antenna without a licence to the portal of a Chinese manufacturer, had the antennas produced there for 6 USD each and supplied them to the Navy with false manufacturer information for 165,109.50 USD. The Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS, the export control agency of the US Department of Commerce) imposed 374,474 USD in 20 instalments and a denial of export privileges suspended for five years.
Do not send specifications of military goods to foreign manufacturers without a licence – even uploading a drawing to a supplier portal is an export.
Technical drawings and specifications as export-controlled technology
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of Commerce, Bureau of Industry and Security (BIS)
- Area of law
- Sanctions and export control · Export control and dual-use goods
- Legal basis
- Export Administration Regulations, 15 C.F.R. § 764.2(a), §§ 742.4, 742.6 (ECCN 3E611)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Culpability
- intentional
- Liability of senior managers
- Measures against individuals are not reported here.
- Published
- 25 Feb 2026
Original amount 374,474 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 24 Feb 2026.
- BIS Reaches Administrative Enforcement Settlement with Vizicom ICT Press release of an authority
- Order Relating to Vizocom ICT (24. Februar 2026) mit Settlement Agreement Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Dec 2025 Unternehmen für private Sicherheitsdienste (anonymisiert)Luxembourg security services firm: EUR 2,784 for incomplete record of processing €2,784
The CNPD (Luxembourg data protection authority) imposed a fine of EUR 2,784, a reprimand and an order on a Luxembourg private security services company with more than 250 employees because its record of processing activities did not fully contain the information required by Art. 30(1) GDPR. Within one month it had to describe the security measures for its whistleblowing report handling, or state expressly that there were none.
The record of processing must contain, for every processing operation – including the handling of whistleblower reports – complete information on purposes, recipients, erasure periods and security measures.
- Authority / court
- Commission nationale pour la protection des données (CNPD), formation restreinte
- Area of law
- Data protection
- Legal basis
- Art. 30(1)(a), (c), (d), (e), (f) und (g) DSGVO; Art. 58(2) und 83 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Defence and security
- CNPD, Délibération n° 4FR/2025 du 16 décembre 2025 (version pseudonymisée) Decision of an authority
- CNPD, Décisions – Délibération n° 4FR/2025 Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
3 Dec 2025 The Boeing Company und Spirit AeroSystems Holdings, Inc.Boeing/Spirit AeroSystems: takeover only with divestiture of Airbus supplier plants Order
For the 8.3 billion USD takeover of the fuselage and wing supplier Spirit AeroSystems, the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) required Boeing to divest Spirit’s Airbus businesses to Airbus and the plant in Subang, Malaysia, to CTRM, to provide transitional services and to continue supplying defence competitors. A monitor oversees implementation.
Vertical acquisitions of a supplier on which competitors also depend often only go through with divestitures and supply commitments.
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Merger control
- Legal basis
- Section 7 Clayton Act; Section 5 FTC Act (Consent Order)
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- FTC Requires Boeing to Divest Several Spirit Assets to Proceed with Merger (03.12.2025) Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
1 Dec 2025 British exporter pays 620,515 GBP for unlicensed exports of military goods €706,898
In September 2025, an unnamed British exporter paid a compound settlement of 620,515.04 GBP to HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) for unlicensed exports of military goods. HMRC offers such settlements only for unintentional breaches or weaknesses in internal controls and following voluntary disclosure (date = publication).
Weaknesses in internal export control become expensive even without intent – disclosing breaches early can avoid prosecution.
Classification of goods and licensing requirements for military goods
- Authority / court
- HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC) / Export Control Joint Unit
- Area of law
- Sanctions and export control · Export control and dual-use goods
- Legal basis
- Export Control Order 2008
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- Voluntary disclosure (prerequisite for the compound settlement)
- Published
- 1 Dec 2025
Original amount 620,515.04 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 1 Dec 2025.
- NTE 2025/31: UK exporter pays compound settlement for breaches of export controls Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
31 Jul 2025 Aero Turbine Inc.; Gallant Capital Partners LLCAero Turbine and Gallant pay 1.75 million USD after self-disclosure on cyber obligations €1.53m
From 2018 to 2020, the engine maintenance company allegedly failed to implement the NIST controls of an Air Force contract and, in 2019, together with its private equity owner, passed files containing sensitive defence data to an unauthorised software company in Egypt. The companies had made several written self-disclosures, cooperated and remedied the issues promptly; the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) granted them cooperation credit for this. Settlement of 1.75 million USD.
Companies that pass controlled defence data to service providers must check their authorisation – self-disclosure and cooperation significantly reduce the consequences.
Handling controlled defence data and service providers
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Division) / USAO Eastern District of California
- Area of law
- Other
- Legal basis
- False Claims Act; NIST SP 800-171
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Mitigating circumstances
- Several written self-disclosures, cooperation and prompt remedial measures.
- Published
- 31 Jul 2025
Original amount 1,750,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 31 Jul 2025.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Jul 2025 Department of National Defence (Kanada)Canada's Department of National Defence pays 10,000 CAD for destroyed hawk nest €6,238
During fence removal work at Canadian Forces Base Suffield, heavy machinery destroyed an occupied nest of the protected ferruginous hawk together with three eggs. The Department of National Defence pleaded guilty to two counts under the Species at Risk Act and was fined 10,000 CAD.
Construction and dismantling work on military land also requires a prior species protection assessment and briefed machine operators.
Species protection during construction work
- Authority / court
- Alberta Court of Justice (Anklage: Environment and Climate Change Canada)
- Area of law
- Environment and sustainability
- Legal basis
- Species at Risk Act, s. 32(1) und s. 33
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 30 Jul 2025
Original amount 10,000 CAD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Jul 2025.
- Department of National Defence fined $10,000 for violating the Species at Risk Act in Alberta Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
22 May 2025 L3 Technologies Inc.L3 Technologies pays 62 million USD over false cost data for communications technology €54.8m
Between October 2006 and February 2014, the Communications System West division allegedly failed to disclose complete and current cost and pricing data when selling ROVER, VORTEX and SIR receivers to the Air Force, Army, Navy and other agencies. Settlement under the False Claims Act and the Truth in Negotiations Act of 62 million USD.
In fixed-price negotiations with the government, costing data must be disclosed completely and on a current basis; price review processes belong in the compliance system.
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Division) / USAO District of Utah
- Area of law
- Other
- Legal basis
- False Claims Act; Truth in Negotiations Act
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 22 May 2025
Original amount 62,000,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 22 May 2025.
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
1 May 2025 Raytheon Company; RTX Corporation; Nightwing Group LLC; Nightwing Intelligence Solutions LLCRaytheon and Nightwing pay 8.4 million USD over cybersecurity deficiencies in DoD contracts €7.39m
Between 2015 and 2021, the companies allegedly failed to prepare a system security plan for an internal development system used for 29 Department of Defense contracts and did not comply with the clauses DFARS 252.204-7012 and FAR 52.204-21. Settlement under the False Claims Act of 8.4 million USD; a former employee received 1.512 million USD as a whistleblower.
Internal development environments are also covered by contractual cybersecurity obligations and need a documented security plan.
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Division) / USAO District of Columbia
- Area of law
- Other
- Legal basis
- False Claims Act; DFARS 252.204-7012; FAR 52.204-21
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 1 May 2025
Original amount 8,400,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 30 Apr 2025.
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Apr 2025 Britisches Exportunternehmen, Militärgüter (anonymisiert)UK exporter pays £3.23m for unlicensed exports of military goods €3.74m
A UK company not named by HMRC paid a compound settlement of £3,231,762.40 in February 2025 in lieu of prosecution over the alleged export of military goods without the licence required under the Export Control Order 2008. HMRC set out the facts in these terms. It was the largest of three settlements totalling close to £3.7 million that HMRC concluded between January and March 2025; no sanctions offences were involved.
Before every export, check whether the goods are military-listed and obtain the appropriate licence.
Classification of goods and licensing requirements for military goods
- Authority / court
- HM Revenue & Customs (HMRC)
- Area of law
- Sanctions and export control · Export control and dual-use goods
- Legal basis
- Export Control Order 2008; Customs and Excise Management Act 1979
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Published
- 9 Apr 2025
Original amount 3,231,762.4 GBP, converted at the ECB reference rate of 9 Apr 2025.
Checked against the official source on 3 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
8 Apr 2025 Securitas Sicherheitsdienstleistungen GmbH, Securitas ABSecuritas: €540,000 fine for collusion in tenders for security services €540,000
The Kartellgericht (Cartel Court) imposed a fine of 540,000 EUR, jointly and severally, on Securitas Sicherheitsdienstleistungen GmbH and Securitas AB. From August 2019 to December 2022, an employee coordinated prices and strategic information with a competitor in three private tenders for manned security services. The Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde (BWB, Federal Competition Authority) granted a reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings.
Even a few coordinated bids in private tenders are enough for a fine; sales teams need clear rules on contacts with competitors.
Information exchange with competitors in tenders
- Authority / court
- Oberlandesgericht Wien als Kartellgericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs. 1 KartG; § 29 Z 1 lit. a KartG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 1,000 to 9,999
- Culpability
- intentional
- Repeat case
- no
- Mitigating circumstances
- Reduction for the consensual termination of the proceedings.
- Published
- 12 Feb 2026
Checked against the official source on 2 Oct 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Feb 2025 Lockheed Martin CorporationLockheed Martin pays 29.74 million USD over inflated price proposals for the F-35 €28.7m
From 2013 to 2015, Lockheed Martin allegedly failed to provide the Joint Program Office with accurate cost and pricing data for five production and sustainment contracts for the F-35 programme and thereby obtained inflated prices. The settlement amounts to 29.74 million USD, in addition to 11.3 million USD that had already been paid to the Department of Defense; it was triggered by a qui tam action.
Whistleblower actions from within the company make pricing errors costly even years later – internal reporting channels must pick up such issues early.
- Authority / court
- U.S. Department of Justice (Civil Division) / USAO Eastern District of Texas
- Area of law
- Other
- Legal basis
- False Claims Act; Truth in Negotiations Act
- Action
- Other
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Employees
- 10,000 or more
- Published
- 6 Feb 2025
Original amount 29,740,000 USD, converted at the ECB reference rate of 6 Feb 2025.
- Lockheed Martin Corporation Agrees to Settle False Claims Act Allegations of Defective Pricing Press release of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
26 Nov 2024 Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc.FTC: Evolv to let schools exit contracts – alleged overstated advertising for AI weapons scanners Order
According to the complaint of the Federal Trade Commission (FTC, the US consumer protection authority), Evolv advertised that its AI-powered security scanners would detect all weapons, ignore harmless items and be more accurate and faster than metal detectors; according to the complaint, the devices at one school missed a knife in October 2022 that was used to stab a student. The settlement order filed together with the complaint at the federal court in Massachusetts is to allow schools with contracts from April 2022 to June 2023 to cancel and to prohibit unsubstantiated claims about detection performance, false alarms and staffing costs; according to the FTC case page, court approval was still pending in March 2025.
Keep performance claims for safety-critical AI accurate – overstated claims become a contractual risk, and customers can be released from contracts based on them.
Performance claims for AI security technology
- Authority / court
- Federal Trade Commission (FTC)
- Area of law
- AI and digital regulation · AI systems
- Legal basis
- Section 5 FTC Act; Stipulated Order for Permanent Injunction
- Action
- Order
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Defence and security
- Published
- 26 Nov 2024
- FTC Takes Action Against Evolv Technologies for Deceiving Users About its AI-Powered Security Screening Systems Press release of an authority
- FTC v. Evolv Technologies Holdings, Inc. Enforcement database of an authority
Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Version 2 · Direct link