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 authority- Oberster Gerichtshof als Kartellobergericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde) €70.2m 82 % · 3 cases
- Verwaltungsgerichtshof (Ausgangsbescheid: Datenschutzbehörde) €13m 15 % · 1 case
- Datenschutzbehörde (DSB) €1.53m 2 % · 5 cases
- Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 19.11.2024 €588,000 1 % · 1 case
- Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 17.12.2024 €356,000 0 % · 1 case
- Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Beschwerde gegen Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht FMA) €300,000 0 % · 1 case
- Datenschutzbehörde €25,500 0 % · 1 case
- Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria) €500 0 % · 2 cases
- Oberster Gerichtshof (OGH), GZ 4 Ob 51/25s — 0 % · 1 case
What for?
by area of lawAll areas of law
- Competition law €70.2m 82 % · 3 cases
- Data protection €14.6m 17 % · 6 cases
- Money laundering and terrorist financing €944,000 1 % · 2 cases
- Capital markets and financial supervision €300,000 0 % · 1 case
- Information security and cyber €870 0 % · 1 case
- Consumer protection and online retail €500 0 % · 3 cases
Who?
by sectorAll sectors
When?
per quarter, by date of decision| Period | Cases | Total |
|---|---|---|
| Q3 2023 | 0 | — |
| Q4 2023 | 1 | €20,000 |
| Q1 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q2 2024 | 0 | — |
| Q3 2024 | 1 | €1.5m |
| Q4 2024 | 3 | €170,000 |
| Q1 2025 | 1 | €70m |
| Q2 2025 | 1 | — |
| Q3 2025 | 3 | €307,070 |
| Q4 2025 | 0 | — |
| Q1 2026 | 3 | €969,500 |
| Q2 2026 | 1 | €13m |
| Q3 2026 | 2 | €500 |
16 cases
19 Aug 2026 WH Media GmbHKommAustria penalises person responsible for W24 over advertising in news programme €500
On 29 May 2024, the Vienna broadcaster W24 aired advertising in split screen within the programme ‘24 Stunden Wien’, did not adequately separate advertising from programming and, at around 50 minutes, significantly exceeded the permitted 12 minutes of advertising per hour. The Austrian Communications Authority (Kommunikationsbehörde Austria, KommAustria) imposed fines totalling 500 EUR (plus 50 EUR in costs) on the body authorised to represent the company externally; the GmbH is jointly and severally liable under § 9 (7) VStG (Austrian Administrative Penal Act).
Advertising time limits and the separation requirement also apply to small regional broadcasters – management is personally liable via § 9 VStG.
- Authority / court
- Kommunikationsbehörde Austria (KommAustria)
- Area of law
- Consumer protection and online retail · Misleading advertising and pricing
- Legal basis
- § 64 Abs. 2 Z 9 i. V. m. §§ 43 Abs. 2, 44 Abs. 1, 45 Abs. 1 AMD-G; § 9 VStG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- No previous record, duration of proceedings, remorseful confession and remedial measures initiated.
- Liability of senior managers
- Fine imposed on the body responsible externally (§ 9 (1) VStG); the company is jointly and severally liable.
- Published
- 19 Aug 2026
- KommAustria, Straferkenntnis KOA 05.910 / 2025-0.418.178-6-A (W24) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
29 Jul 2026 Österreichischer Rundfunk (ORF)KommAustria finds unlabelled product placement in ORF's ‘Sport aktuell’ Order
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).
Product placements must be identified and labelled by the editorial team – including logo walls in the background.
Labelling of advertising and product placement
- 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
- KommAustria, Entscheidung 2025-0.606.040-3-A (ORF, Sport aktuell) Decision of an authority
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
20 Feb 2026 BVwG reduces FMA penalty against private bank over unclarified beneficial owners €356,000
From 2017 to 2020, an Austrian bank specialising in private and investment banking had not adequately examined the ownership and control structure of an offshore holding client despite the lack of evidence on shareholders, trust arrangements and beneficial owners. The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) confirmed the infringement but reduced the additional penalty imposed by the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht, FMA) in its penalty decision of 17 December 2024 from 476,000 to 356,000 EUR (total penalty 436,000 EUR less FMA penalties already paid), because the FMA had taken the seriousness of the offence into account twice and the bank had cooperated, admitted its errors and terminated the client relationship; an appeal on points of law has been permitted.
For offshore holdings with trustees, prove the beneficial owner with supporting documents – a self-declaration is not enough.
Identifying beneficial owners in holding and trust structures
- Authority / court
- Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 17.12.2024
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
- Legal basis
- § 9 Abs. 1 erster Satz i. V. m. § 6 Abs. 1 Z 2 FM-GwG; § 35 Abs. 1 und 3 i. V. m. § 34 Abs. 1 Z 2 und Abs. 2 FM-GwG; § 22 Abs. 9 FMABG (Zusatzstrafe)
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- reduced
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- Reduction by the court because the wrongfulness of the offence had been counted twice, cooperation, admission of the facts and of guilt, and termination of the client relationship
- BVwG W204 2306222-1 vom 20.02.2026 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
17 Feb 2026 BVwG upholds 588,000 EUR FMA penalty against major bank over incorrect risk classification €588,000
The Austrian Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) dismissed the appeal of a listed major Austrian bank and upheld the fine of 588,000 EUR (plus 58,800 EUR in procedural costs) imposed by the Financial Market Authority (Finanzmarktaufsicht, FMA) in its penalty decision of 19 November 2024. From 2017 to 2020, the bank had not adequately risk-classified three business relationships and had disregarded sector risks such as gambling and precious metals trading as well as cash intensity; an appeal on points of law has been permitted.
Customers from gambling or precious metals trading with a high share of cash belong in a higher risk class – otherwise the enhanced obligations are missing.
Risk classification of cash-intensive high-risk sectors
- Authority / court
- Bundesverwaltungsgericht (BVwG); Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht (FMA) vom 19.11.2024
- Area of law
- Money laundering and terrorist financing · Customer due diligence
- Legal basis
- § 6 Abs. 5 i. V. m. § 34 Abs. 1 Z 2 und § 35 Abs. 1–3 FM-GwG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- unknown
- Sector
- Financial services and insurance
- BVwG W204 2304676-1 vom 17.02.2026 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
4 Sep 2025 A*** GmbH (Werbeagentur, im Bescheid pseudonymisiert)Austrian advertising agency: 870 EUR – alert about security gap dismissed as spam €870
Customer data (including names, e-mail addresses, dates of birth, telephone numbers) could be retrieved via an unprotected development server of the advertising agency. An employee took the first alert from an external party in January 2025 to be spam; only a second alert in February reached management, which closed the gap but only notified the incident on 2 May 2025 after being requested to do so by the Datenschutzbehörde (Austrian Data Protection Authority, DSB). The authority attributed the employee’s conduct to the company.
External alerts about security gaps need a clear intake channel – what ends up in spam still counts as known.
Recognising and escalating alerts about security gaps
Missing or inadequate training played a role in the decision.
- Authority / court
- Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)
- Area of law
- Information security and cyber · Incident reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 33 Abs. 1 iVm Art. 83 Abs. 4 lit. a DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- Culpability
- negligent
- Mitigating circumstances
- No previous infringements and cooperation in the proceedings; gap closed immediately after the second alert, employees trained subsequently.
- DSB, Straferkenntnis GZ 2025-0.699.550 vom 04.09.2025 (RIS) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
6 Aug 2025 DSB: fine against news portal that ignored instruction on cookie banner €6,200
In 2023, the Austrian data protection authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) had ordered a local news portal (a media GmbH & Co KG, name pseudonymised) by decision to offer, on the first layer of the cookie banner, an equivalent option to close it without consent. Because the company did not implement this from October 2024 until at least March 2025, the DSB imposed 6,200 EUR for failure to comply with an instruction; the penalty decision is final.
Implement orders of the supervisory authority on time – ignoring them risks a separate fine in addition to the original infringement.
- Authority / court
- Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Cookies and tracking
- Legal basis
- Art. 58 Abs. 2 lit. d i. V. m. Art. 83 Abs. 6 DSGVO; Art. 7 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Media and online platforms
- DSB Straferkenntnis GZ 2025-0.276.820 vom 06.08.2025 (RIS) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
9 Jul 2025 Share buyback disclosed too late: BVwG reduces FMA penalty against real estate company €300,000
On Saturday, 17 December 2022, the management board of a listed real estate company (anonymised in the judgment) approved by email a new share buyback programme including its volume, period and price, but only published it after a formal resolution on Monday, 19 December 2022. Austria's Financial Market Authority (FMA) imposed a penalty of 375,000 EUR; the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) upheld the breach of the ad hoc disclosure obligation but reduced the penalty to 300,000 EUR.
A final decision by a corporate body triggers the ad hoc disclosure obligation immediately – weekends and outstanding contractual details do not postpone it.
Ad hoc disclosure obligation for decisions of corporate bodies, including at weekends
- Authority / court
- Bundesverwaltungsgericht (Beschwerde gegen Straferkenntnis der Finanzmarktaufsicht FMA)
- Area of law
- Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations
- Legal basis
- Art. 17 Abs. 1 MAR i. V. m. § 156 Abs. 3 Z 2, Abs. 4 BörseG 2018
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- reduced
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- Culpability
- negligent
- BVwG W279 2310813-1 vom 09.07.2025 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
28 Jan 2025 OGH raises gun-jumping fine against food retailer from 1.5 to 70 million EUR €70m
A food retail group anonymised in the decision (R*) had, through its subsidiary, implemented a notifiable concentration without merger control clearance by means of a long-term lease of store space in a shopping centre (1 July 2018 to 20 September 2022). The Cartel Court (Kartellgericht) imposed a fine of 1.5 million EUR; Austria's Supreme Court (Oberster Gerichtshof, OGH) upheld the appeals of the Federal Competition Authority (Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde, BWB) and the Federal Cartel Prosecutor (Bundeskartellanwalt) and set the fine at 70 million EUR, taking into account the group turnover of 92.3 billion EUR and an earlier fine for prohibited implementation.
Taking over stores by way of a lease or tenancy agreement can also be a notifiable concentration – expansion departments must check merger control requirements.
Notification requirement for site takeovers through leases or tenancy agreements
- 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
- Retail and e-commerce
- Repeat case
- yes
- OGH 16 Ok 5/24g vom 28.01.2025 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
Report an error
16 Oct 2024 OGH: 65,000 EUR fine against joinery over cover bids and market sharing €65,000
From February 2011 to October 2016, a construction and furniture joinery anonymised in the decision (J*, together with its general partner GmbH) participated in agreements on successful bidders, cover bids, market sharing and information exchange in tenders in Lower Austria and Vienna. The Cartel Court imposed a fine of 55,000 EUR only for 26 infringements up to June 2016; the OGH upheld the appeals of the BWB and the Federal Cartel Prosecutor and set a fine of 65,000 EUR on a joint and several basis for the entire period.
Even small craft businesses are penalised for cover bids – "courtesy bids" among colleagues are competition law infringements.
Cover bids in tenders for craft trades
- Authority / court
- Oberster Gerichtshof als Kartellobergericht (Antrag der Bundeswettbewerbsbehörde)
- Area of law
- Competition law · Cartels and collusion
- Legal basis
- § 1 Abs 1 KartG 2005, §§ 28, 29 KartG
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Construction and real estate
- OGH 16 Ok 6/23b vom 16.10.2024 Court decision
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Oct 2024 DSB: 5,000 EUR against Covid laboratory with managing director as data protection officer €5,000
A limited company operating a diagnostic laboratory (name pseudonymised), which during the pandemic carried out up to 45,000 PCR analyses a day with around 200 employees, had appointed its managing director as data protection officer at the same time. Because of the resulting conflict of interest, the Austrian data protection authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 5,000 EUR; the penalty decision is final.
Whoever decides on the purposes and means of processing cannot monitor themselves as data protection officer.
- Authority / court
- Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)
- Area of law
- Data protection
- Legal basis
- Art. 37, Art. 38 Abs. 6 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Healthcare
- Employees
- 50 to 249
- Liability of senior managers
- The managing director was also appointed as data protection officer – an impermissible conflict of interest.
- DSB Straferkenntnis GZ 2024-0.641.771 vom 16.10.2024 (RIS) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
16 Aug 2024 DSB: 1.5 million EUR against retail chain over cameras on self-checkouts, PIN pad and surroundings €1.5m
In 2022, a retail company (name pseudonymised) used nine cameras in one branch to film, among other things, the self-service checkouts including the keypad of the card payment terminal, as well as public areas, bus stops and neighbouring properties. The Austrian data protection authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 1.5 million EUR for lack of a legal basis and infringement of data minimisation; the Federal Administrative Court (Bundesverwaltungsgericht, BVwG) confirmed the amount on 25 July 2025, and an appeal on points of law is pending.
Align cameras in retail closely with their protective purpose – PIN entries, public spaces and neighbouring properties must not be in the frame.
- Authority / court
- Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Video surveillance
- Legal basis
- Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und c, Art. 6 Abs. 1 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- under appeal
- Sector
- Retail and e-commerce
- DSB Straferkenntnis GZ 2023-0.680.196 vom 16.08.2024 (RIS) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link
Report an error
7 Dec 2023 DSB: 20,000 EUR against restaurant business over constant surveillance of kitchen and pick-up area €20,000
A restaurant company with a delivery and pick-up service (name pseudonymised) recorded workstations in the kitchen and pick-up area without interruption, even outside opening hours, and stored the recordings for 14 days. In addition, there had been no record of processing activities since 2018; the Austrian data protection authority (Datenschutzbehörde, DSB) imposed 20,000 EUR, and the penalty decision is final.
Even small businesses may not film employees permanently – and they need a record of their processing activities.
- Authority / court
- Datenschutzbehörde (DSB)
- Area of law
- Data protection · Video surveillance
- Legal basis
- Art. 5 Abs. 1 lit. a und c, Art. 6 Abs. 1, Art. 30 Abs. 1 DSGVO
- Action
- Fine
- Status of proceedings
- final
- Sector
- Food and agriculture
- DSB Straferkenntnis GZ 2023-0.583.644 vom 07.12.2023 (RIS) Decision of an authority
Checked against the official source on 25 Sep 2026 · Direct link