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.

EUEU level Clear all filters
20cases from 1 jurisdiction
€3.8bnTotal of monetary amounts (14 cases with an amount)
€890mLargest single case: Google
€200mMedian per case with an amount

Click a bar to drill down one level.

Where?

by authority
  1. Europäische Kommission 14 cases 70 % · €3.79bn
  2. Europäische Wertpapier- und Marktaufsichtsbehörde (ESMA) 3 cases 15 % · €5.72m
  3. Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (Große Kammer), Rs. C-492/23 1 case 5 % ·
  4. Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union, Rs. C-340/21 1 case 5 % ·
  5. Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union, Rs. C-413/23 P 1 case 5 % ·

What for?

by area of law

All areas of law

  1. AI and digital regulation 9 cases 45 % · €2.46bn
  2. Competition law 5 cases 25 % · €1.33bn
  3. Data protection 3 cases 15 % ·
  4. Capital markets and financial supervision 3 cases 15 % · €5.72m

Who?

by sector

All sectors

  1. Retail and e-commerce 4 cases 20 % · €1.08bn
  2. Media and online platforms 4 cases 20 % · €320m
  3. Financial services and insurance 3 cases 15 % · €5.72m
  4. Telecoms, IT and software 3 cases 15 % · €1.39bn
  5. Automotive 2 cases 10 % · €530m
  6. Chemicals and pharmaceuticals 2 cases 10 % · €476m
  7. Public sector 2 cases 10 % ·

When?

per quarter, by date of decision
Trend
PeriodCasesTotal
Q3 20230—
Q4 20232€13.4m
Q1 20241€2.2m
Q2 20240—
Q3 20240—
Q4 20241€462.6m
Q1 20251—
Q2 20255€1.49bn
Q3 20251—
Q4 20254€192m
Q1 20261€1.37m
Q2 20262€202.1m
Q3 20262€1.44bn

20 cases

23 Jul 2026 GoogleDMA: 890 million EUR against Google over self-preferencing and Play steering EU levelPlatform obligations €890m

In two decisions, the European Commission found that Google favours its own services in search (460 million EUR) and prevents app developers on Google Play from steering customers to alternative offers (430 million EUR). Google was ordered to bring the infringements to an end.

What organisations can take from it

Platforms' ranking rules and fee models must be demonstrably non-discriminatory and designed in compliance with the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) 2022/1925 (DMA), Selbstbevorzugungsverbot und Anti-Steering-Pflicht
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Telecoms, IT and software
Employees
10,000 or more
Published
23 Jul 2026

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

20 Jul 2026 AliExpressDSA: 550 million EUR against AliExpress over illegal and unsafe products EU levelPlatform obligations €550m

AliExpress did not diligently assess the risks posed by illegal, unsafe and counterfeit products (including insufficient moderation capacity, recommender and advertising systems) and did not take effective countermeasures (including deficient enforcement of sanctions against traders, product checks that could be circumvented). The European Commission imposed 550 million EUR under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and required an action plan by 20 October 2026.

What organisations can take from it

The size of a marketplace does not justify gaps: moderation capacity and sanctions against traders must match the actual risk.

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) 2022/2065 (DSA), Risikobewertung und Risikominderung
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Mitigating circumstances
Novelty of the Digital Services Act (taken into account by the Commission when setting the fine)
Published
20 Jul 2026

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

30 Jun 2026 Moody's Deutschland GmbHESMA fines Moody's Deutschland 2.1 million EUR EU levelOrganisational requirements €2.15m

The credit rating agency did not submit up-to-date rating information to the European Securities and Markets Authority (ESMA), did not provide complete historical performance data to the central repository and lacked adequate procedures and internal control mechanisms. ESMA found negligent infringements and imposed fines totalling 2,145,000 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Reporting obligations to the supervisory authority are data quality issues – without functioning internal controls, they become a risk of fines.

Authority / court
Europäische Wertpapier- und Marktaufsichtsbehörde (ESMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1060/2009 (CRA-Verordnung), Art. 24, 36a, Anhang III
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Repeat case
yes

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

28 May 2026 TemuDSA: 200 million EUR against Temu over deficient risk assessment of illegal products EU levelPlatform obligations €200m

Temu's 2024 risk assessment was based on general industry data rather than on findings about its own service and underestimated how often EU consumers encounter illegal products; test purchases revealed unsafe chargers and baby toys. The European Commission imposed 200 million EUR under the Digital Services Act (DSA) and required an action plan by 28 August 2026.

What organisations can take from it

Risk assessments must be based on the company's own, service-specific evidence – generic industry analyses are not sufficient.

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) 2022/2065 (DSA), Risikobewertungspflichten sehr großer Online-Plattformen; Art. 75
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Published
28 May 2026
Sources

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

17 Feb 2026 REGIS-TR S.A.Trade repository REGIS-TR: deficiencies in organisation and data protection – 1.37 million EUR EU levelOrganisational requirements €1.37m

The Luxembourg trade repository lacked adequate compliance procedures and an appropriate organisational structure, failed to identify operational risks and did not adequately protect the confidentiality and integrity of the reported data. ESMA imposed fines totalling 1,374,000 EUR for negligent infringements under EMIR and SFTR; the case is under appeal.

What organisations can take from it

Market infrastructures must manage operational risks and data access as strictly as banks manage their credit risks.

Authority / court
Europäische Wertpapier- und Marktaufsichtsbehörde (ESMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) Nr. 648/2012 (EMIR), Art. 65, 73, Anhang I; Verordnung (EU) 2015/2365 (SFTR), Art. 9
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Repeat case
yes

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

15 Dec 2025 Exide, FET (inkl. Elettra), Rombat, EUROBAT (Clarios Kronzeuge)EU: 72 million EUR against starter battery manufacturers and the association EUROBAT EU levelCartels and collusion €72m

From 2005 to 2017, the manufacturers of automotive starter batteries agreed, with the help of the association EUROBAT, to publish jointly calculated lead surcharges (EUROBAT premiums) and to use them in price negotiations with carmakers. Fines: Exide 30 million EUR, Rombat 20.218 million EUR, Elettra 15.594 million EUR, FET 6.11 million EUR, EUROBAT 125,000 EUR; Clarios escaped a fine as leniency applicant.

What organisations can take from it

Suppliers may pass on raw material surcharges individually, but must never fix them in an industry-wide coordinated manner via association indices.

Relevance to training and awareness

Joint raw material surcharges among competitors via association indices

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Art. 101 AEUV, Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Automotive
Mitigating circumstances
Leniency programme (Clarios 100 %, FET 50 %, Rombat 30 %); reduction for inability to pay for one company; payment in instalments

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

5 Dec 2025 XEuropean Commission: 120 million EUR DSA fine against X over blue checkmark and advertising repository EU levelPlatform obligations €120m

First non-compliance decision under the Digital Services Act (DSA): the European Commission imposed 120 million EUR on X because the purchasable ‘verified’ checkmark deceives users, the advertising repository lacks essential information (content, topic, advertiser) and researchers are denied access to public data. X must present remedies within 60 working days and an action plan within 90 working days respectively.

What organisations can take from it

Use verification and trust symbols only if verification actually takes place – otherwise they are treated as deceptive design.

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) 2022/2065 (DSA), Art. 25 Abs. 1, Art. 39, Art. 40 Abs. 12
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Media and online platforms
Published
5 Dec 2025
Sources

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

5 Dec 2025 TikTokTikTok: binding DSA commitments for a complete advertising repository EU levelPlatform obligations Order

Following preliminary findings in May 2025 that TikTok’s advertising repository did not meet the requirements of the Digital Services Act, the European Commission declared commitments binding: complete ad content including links, updates within 24 hours, disclosure of targeting criteria with aggregated reach data and improved search functions. Depending on the commitment, implementation must take place within 2 to 12 months; breaches of the commitments count as breaches of the DSA.

What organisations can take from it

Advertising repositories are a separate platform obligation – they must be complete, up to date and searchable, not merely exist formally.

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations
Legal basis
Digital Services Act (Verordnung (EU) 2022/2065): Pflicht zum Werbearchiv; verbindliche Zusagen nach Art. 71
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Media and online platforms
Employees
10,000 or more

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

2 Dec 2025 Russmedia Digital SRLCJEU: online marketplace is liable as controller for data in user adverts EU levelData subject rights and transparency —

On the Romanian marketplace publi24.ro, a fake advert appeared with photos and the telephone number of a woman, claiming that she offered sexual services. The Court of Justice of the European Union (Grand Chamber, Case C-492/23) ruled that the operator is a controller within the meaning of the GDPR, must identify adverts containing sensitive data before publication and verify identity or consent, and cannot rely on the liability exemption of the E-Commerce Directive.

What organisations can take from it

Platforms with user content must technically detect and check sensitive data before publication – notice and takedown alone is not sufficient.

Authority / court
Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union (Große Kammer), Rs. C-492/23
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
DSGVO (Verantwortlicher, Art. 9, Art. 32); Richtlinie 2000/31/EG
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Media and online platforms
Published
2 Dec 2025

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

4 Sep 2025 Einheitlicher Abwicklungsausschuss (Single Resolution Board, SRB)CJEU: pseudonymised data in disclosure to Deloitte – EDPS v SRB EU levelData subject rights and transparency —

The Single Resolution Board (SRB) passed on pseudonymised comments from former Banco Popular shareholders to Deloitte without informing the data subjects; the European Data Protection Supervisor (EDPS) considered this an infringement of the duty to inform. The Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-413/23 P) set aside the judgment of the General Court and clarified that the duty to inform is to be assessed from the controller's perspective at the time of collection; the case was referred back to the General Court.

What organisations can take from it

Pseudonymisation does not release the controller from informing data subjects about the recipients of their data.

Authority / court
Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union, Rs. C-413/23 P
Area of law
Data protection · Data subject rights and transparency
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) 2018/1725 (Informationspflicht)
Status of proceedings
under appeal
Sector
Public sector
Published
4 Sep 2025

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

18 Jun 2025 AliExpressAliExpress: DSA commitments on illegal products and trader transparency made binding EU levelPlatform obligations Order

The European Commission declared binding commitments by AliExpress relating, among other things, to the detection of illegal products such as medicines and food supplements (including via hidden links and affiliate programmes), the notice and complaint system, the transparency of advertising and recommender systems, the traceability of traders and data access for researchers; an independent monitoring trustee oversees implementation. In parallel, it made a preliminary finding of a breach of the obligation to carry out a risk assessment.

What organisations can take from it

Marketplaces must systematically detect illegal products – including where they are offered via detours such as affiliate links.

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations
Legal basis
Art. 71 Digital Services Act (Verordnung (EU) 2022/2065)
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
final
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Employees
10,000 or more

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

2 Jun 2025 Delivery Hero SE, Glovoapp23 SAEU: 329 million EUR against Delivery Hero and Glovo – first labour market cartel EU levelCartels and collusion €329m

From July 2018 to July 2022, Delivery Hero and Glovo agreed a mutual no-poach arrangement, exchanged commercially sensitive information and allocated national markets; this was facilitated by Delivery Hero's minority stake in Glovo. Fines: Delivery Hero 223.285 million EUR, Glovo 105.732 million EUR (settlement procedure, 10 % reduction).

What organisations can take from it

No-poach clauses and information flows from stakes in competitors are high-risk under competition law and must be shielded by clean-team rules.

Relevance to training and awareness

No-poach agreements and information exchange via minority stakes

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Art. 101 AEUV, Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Retail and e-commerce
Employees
10,000 or more
Mitigating circumstances
Settlement procedure (10 % reduction)

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

23 Apr 2025 AppleDMA: 500 million EUR against Apple over anti-steering in the App Store EU levelPlatform obligations €500m

In one of the first non-compliance decisions under the Digital Markets Act (DMA), the European Commission found that Apple prevents app developers from informing customers free of charge about cheaper offers outside the App Store and steering them there. In addition to a fine of 500 million EUR, the removal of the restrictions within 60 days was ordered, failing which periodic penalty payments may be imposed.

What organisations can take from it

Gatekeepers must allow business users to communicate freely with their customers; technical or commercial hurdles are treated as circumvention.

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) 2022/1925 (DMA), Anti-Steering-Pflicht
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Telecoms, IT and software
Employees
10,000 or more
Published
23 Apr 2025
Sources

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

23 Apr 2025 MetaDMA: 200 million EUR against Meta over ‘consent or pay’ model EU levelPlatform obligations €200m

Between March and November 2024, Meta offered users of Facebook and Instagram only the choice between consenting to the combination of their data for personalised advertising and a paid subscription. The European Commission saw this as a breach of the obligation under the Digital Markets Act (DMA) to offer an equivalent, less data-intensive alternative, and imposed 200 million EUR.

What organisations can take from it

A binary ‘consent or pay’ is not sufficient where the law requires an equivalent option involving less data processing.

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations
Legal basis
Verordnung (EU) 2022/1925 (DMA), Einwilligung zur Datenzusammenführung
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Media and online platforms
Employees
10,000 or more
Published
23 Apr 2025
Sources

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

1 Apr 2025 BMW, Ford, Honda, Hyundai/Kia, Jaguar Land Rover, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Opel/GM, Renault/Nissan, Stellantis, Suzuki, Toyota, Volkswagen, Volvo, ACEA (Mercedes-Benz Kronzeuge)EU: 458 million EUR against carmakers and ACEA over end-of-life vehicle recycling cartel EU levelCartels and collusion €457.9m

The Commission imposed fines of around 458 million EUR on 15 carmakers and the association ACEA. From 2002 to 2017, they had agreed not to pay dismantlers for recycling end-of-life vehicles and not to advertise recycling rates or recycled content; ACEA organised the meetings. Mercedes-Benz received full immunity as leniency applicant, and all parties reached a settlement (10 % reduction).

What organisations can take from it

Agreements on purchasing terms or on refraining from advertising claims are also cartels – association meetings require antitrust supervision.

Relevance to training and awareness

Agreements in association bodies; refraining from purchasing or advertising can also be a cartel

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Art. 101 AEUV, Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Automotive
Employees
10,000 or more
Mitigating circumstances
Leniency programme (Mercedes-Benz 100 %, Stellantis/Opel 50 %, Mitsubishi 30 %, Ford 20 %), 10 % settlement reduction, lesser involvement of Honda, Mazda, Mitsubishi, Suzuki

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

19 Mar 2025 AppleApple: Commission sets out specific interoperability obligations for iOS by DMA decision EU levelPlatform obligations Order

In two specification decisions under the Digital Markets Act, the European Commission set out which interoperability measures Apple must take: access for manufacturers of connected devices to nine iOS features (such as notifications on smartwatches, peer-to-peer Wi-Fi, NFC, pairing) and a more transparent and faster procedure for developers’ interoperability requests.

What organisations can take from it

Gatekeepers must actively open interfaces – anyone handling third-party requests sluggishly risks detailed regulatory requirements.

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
AI and digital regulation · Platform obligations
Legal basis
Digital Markets Act (Verordnung (EU) 2022/1925): Interoperabilitätspflicht, Spezifizierungsbeschlüsse
Action
Order
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Telecoms, IT and software
Employees
10,000 or more

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

31 Oct 2024 Teva Pharmaceutical Industries (Teva-Gruppe)EU: 462.6 million EUR against Teva for patent misuse and disparaging a competing medicine EU levelAbuse of market power €462.6m

Teva abused its dominant position for the MS medicine Copaxone: it artificially extended patent protection by filing staggered divisional applications with the EPO and strategically withdrawing them, and spread misleading statements about an authorised competing product among physicians and decision-makers. Seven Member States were affected over periods of four to nine years.

What organisations can take from it

Communications by sales representatives and medical affairs about competing products must be substantiated and objective; patent strategies of dominant companies require competition law review.

Relevance to training and awareness

Disparaging statements about competing products to healthcare professionals

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
Competition law · Abuse of market power
Legal basis
Art. 102 AEUV
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
Employees
10,000 or more

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

20 Mar 2024 Scope Ratings GmbHScope Ratings: conflicts of interest not identified and disclosed – 2.2 million EUR EU levelOrganisational requirements €2.2m

The Berlin-based credit rating agency lacked adequate procedures, internal controls and organisational arrangements to deal with conflicts of interest, did not disclose a potential conflict and concealed ancillary services it had provided to a rated entity. ESMA found negligent infringements and imposed fines of 2,197,500 EUR.

What organisations can take from it

Systematically record and disclose ancillary services for customers whom you are at the same time rating or auditing.

Relevance to training and awareness

Identifying and disclosing conflicts of interest

Authority / court
Europäische Wertpapier- und Marktaufsichtsbehörde (ESMA)
Area of law
Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements
Legal basis
Verordnung (EG) Nr. 1060/2009 (CRA-Verordnung), Anhang III
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Financial services and insurance
Culpability
negligent
Repeat case
yes
Published
22 Mar 2024

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

14 Dec 2023 Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite (NAP, bulgarische Steuerbehörde)CJEU: after hacker attack, Bulgaria's tax authority must prove adequate security EU levelData breaches and data security —

Following a cyber attack in 2019, data on millions of people from the IT system of the Bulgarian tax authority (Natsionalna agentsia za prihodite, NAP) was published on the internet. The Court of Justice of the European Union (Case C-340/21) ruled that the controller must prove the adequacy of its protective measures, can be liable even for attacks by third parties, and that the mere fear of misuse of data can constitute non-material damage.

What organisations can take from it

After an attack, the company bears the burden of proving adequate security – documenting the measures protects against liability.

Authority / court
Gerichtshof der Europäischen Union, Rs. C-340/21
Area of law
Data protection · Data breaches and data security
Legal basis
DSGVO Art. 24, Art. 32, Art. 82
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Public sector
Published
14 Dec 2023

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

19 Oct 2023 Alkaloids of Australia, Alkaloids Corporation, Boehringer, Linnea, Transo-Pharm (C2 PHARMA Kronzeuge)EU: 13.4 million EUR against pharmaceutical ingredient cartel (SNBB for Buscopan) EU levelCartels and collusion €13.4m

From 2005 to 2019, six manufacturers and traders of the active ingredient SNBB (the base substance for Buscopan and generics) fixed minimum prices, allocated quotas and exchanged sensitive information. This was the first cartel concerning an active pharmaceutical ingredient that the Commission has sanctioned; C2 PHARMA received full immunity, and all parties reached a settlement.

What organisations can take from it

Even small niche markets for active ingredients are in the spotlight – contacts with competitors about prices or volumes are off-limits.

Relevance to training and awareness

Price and quota agreements in the trade in active ingredients

Authority / court
Europäische Kommission
Area of law
Competition law · Cartels and collusion
Legal basis
Art. 101 AEUV, Art. 53 EWR-Abkommen
Action
Fine
Status of proceedings
unknown
Sector
Chemicals and pharmaceuticals
Mitigating circumstances
Leniency programme (C2 PHARMA 100 %, Transo-Pharm 50 %, Linnea 30 %), 10 % settlement reduction

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

Report an error

Anonymous: we store only your text — no contact details and no IP address.

Ready for training that sticks?

Try it free for 14 days — from 1 user, no credit card, ends automatically.

Start free trial