Who was sanctioned, and for what?

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.

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

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.

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

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.

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

From 2 October 2023 to 22 October 2024, contrary to a 2023 ECB decision, Banque Internationale à Luxembourg did not apply the newly approved internal models for the expected loss best estimate (ELBE) of defaulted retail and corporate exposures and therefore reported an IRB shortfall to be deducted from Common Equity Tier 1 capital that was too small. The ECB regarded the breach as intentional and severe and imposed 3,255,000 EUR; remedial action was taken into account as mitigating.

Authority / court

Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

Art. 18 Abs. 7 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013 (Verstoß gegen einen EZB-Beschluss zu internen Modellen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Remedial action to alleviate the effects and to prevent future breaches.

Published

29 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

The European Commission ordered Meta to restore access for rival general-purpose AI assistants to the WhatsApp for Business interface on the terms in place before 15 October 2025, i.e. free of charge, and to maintain it until the final decision. The Commission found a prima facie abuse of a dominant position in consumer communication apps, because Meta had first excluded third-party assistants and later charged a fee with practically the same effect; the measures had to be implemented within five working days.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV; Art. 54 EWR-Abkommen; Art. 8 Abs. 1 VO (EG) Nr. 1/2003

Action

Order

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Published

9 Jun 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

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

According to the ECB decision, BofA Securities Europe SA reported risk-weighted assets for market risk that were too low, and hence incorrect capital ratios, for six quarters (31 December 2022 to 31 March 2024), because it used its internal model for sovereign bond options although its permission did not cover them. The ECB classified the breach as intentional and severe and took remedial action into account as mitigating.

Authority / court

Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Art. 430 Abs. 1 Buchst. a VO (EU) Nr. 575/2013 (CRR); Art. 18 Abs. 1 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

intentional

Mitigating circumstances

Remedial action to prevent future breaches.

Published

27 Mar 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

The ECB imposed two penalties on J.P. Morgan SE: 10,150,000 EUR because the bank misclassified corporate exposures in 15 quarterly reports (end-2019 to mid-2023) and reported risk-weighted assets for credit risk that were too low, and 2,030,000 EUR because it wrongly excluded transactions from the calculation of credit valuation adjustment (CVA) risk in 21 reporting periods (2019 to 2024). The ECB regarded both as seriously negligent, caused by evident deficiencies in internal processes; as a result, the reported capital ratios were too high.

Authority / court

Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Disclosure and reporting obligations

Legal basis

Art. 430 Abs. 1 Buchst. a VO (EU) Nr. 575/2013 (CRR); Art. 18 Abs. 1 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Culpability

negligent

Mitigating circumstances

The bank identified and reported the breaches itself, cooperated and took remedial action.

Published

19 Feb 2026

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

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.

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

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

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.

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

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.

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

According to the European Commission's findings, from April 2015 to April 2023 Gucci restricted the freedom of independent online and brick-and-mortar retailers throughout the EEA to set their own resale prices, for example through requirements on recommended prices, maximum discounts and sales periods, and prohibited online sales for one product line. Owing to its cooperation, including revealing an infringement unknown to the Commission, the fine was reduced by 50% to 119,674,000 EUR; separate decisions against Chloé and Loewe were adopted on the same day.

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

Mitigating circumstances

Cooperation providing evidence of significant added value, disclosure of an unknown infringement and acknowledgement: 50% reduction.

Published

14 Oct 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

According to the European Commission's findings, Google had, since at least 2014, abused its dominant position in publisher ad servers (DFP) and in programmatic ad buying tools (Google Ads, DV360) by favouring its own ad exchange AdX, for example by informing it in advance of the best rival bid. In addition to the fine of €2.95bn, the Commission ordered Google to end the self-preferencing and to propose measures against the conflicts of interest along the adtech supply chain; earlier fines imposed on Google for abuse of dominance were taken into account.

Authority / court

Europäische Kommission

Area of law

Competition law · Abuse of market power

Legal basis

Art. 102 AEUV; Art. 54 EWR-Abkommen

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

unknown

Sector

Media and online platforms

Employees

10,000 or more

Repeat case

yes

Published

5 Sep 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

According to the European Commission's findings, Alchem took part from 1 November 2005 to 12 February 2018 in an EEA-wide cartel concerning the active ingredient N-butylbromide scopolamine (SNBB), involving minimum prices, quotas and exchanges of sensitive information. Unlike the other participants, who were subject to a settlement decision in October 2023, Alchem declined to settle and received a fine of 489,000 EUR without any reduction.

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

Published

4 Jul 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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.

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

Contrary to an ECB decision, Belfius did not implement the new internal models for calculating capital requirements for credit risk by 26 January 2024 and did not submit an audit report validating them, continuing instead to use outdated models from 27 January 2024 to 17 March 2025, although the ECB had reminded it of the obligation. The ECB assessed the misconduct as high and the breach as severe and imposed 6,940,000 EUR; a remedial measure against the underestimation of risk-weighted exposure amounts was taken into account as mitigating.

Authority / court

Europäische Zentralbank (EZB), Bankenaufsicht

Area of law

Capital markets and financial supervision · Organisational requirements

Legal basis

Art. 18 Abs. 7 VO (EU) Nr. 1024/2013 (Verstoß gegen einen EZB-Beschluss zu internen Modellen)

Action

Fine

Status of proceedings

final

Sector

Financial services and insurance

Mitigating circumstances

Remedial measure against the underestimation of risk-weighted exposure amounts.

Published

18 Jul 2025

Checked against the official source on 28 Sep 2026 · Direct link

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).

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