The consequences of breaching competition law can be severe. Explore the biggest competition law fines for each year from 2020 onwards with our comprehensive report.
Competition law is vital for ensuring fair market practices and protecting consumers from monopolistic and collusive behaviour.
Each year, global regulators impose significant fines on companies that violate these laws, reinforcing the importance of competition and deterring anti-competitive practices.
This comprehensive report examines the largest competition law fines issued annually from 2020 to 2024. It highlights the industries, practices, and regulatory actions that have shaped the enforcement landscape and serves as a resource for organisations aiming to understand and adhere to competition law standards.
Take a closer look at each of 2024's competition law fines
Take a closer look at each of 2023's competition law fines
Take a closer look at each of 2022's competition law fines
Take a closer look at each of 2021's competition law fines
Take a closer look at each of 2020's competition law fines
Apple was fined by the European Commission for abusing its dominance in the music streaming market. The company imposed restrictions on rivals like Spotify, preventing them from informing customers about cheaper subscription options outside Apple's App Store. This anti-competitive behaviour limited consumer choice and reinforced Apple's monopoly.
The European Commission penalised Mondelēz for restricting cross-border sales of its chocolate products. By limiting traders' ability to sell products across borders and demanding higher export prices, Mondelēz exploited market price disparities of up to 40% between EU nations, impacting fair trade.
The CMA reinstated a £20m fine against demolition company Keltbray for engaging in cover bidding. This practice involved colluding with competitors to rig tenders, artificially inflating project costs and depriving clients of fair competition in bidding processes.
Swisscom was fined by the Swiss Federal Competition Commission for using single-mode fibre cables in its network infrastructure. This choice hindered fair competition by making it harder for competitors to provide high-speed services, prompting regulators to mandate cable upgrades or risk shutdowns.
Russia’s Federal Antimonopoly Service fined Apple for restricting in-app payment options. By mandating its own payment systems, Apple gave itself an unfair advantage, disadvantaging competing platforms. Apple’s appeal was dismissed, solidifying the penalty.
Illumina was fined globally for anti-competitive practices in the DNA sequencing market. The company used exclusive contracts and strategic acquisitions to block competitors, stifling innovation and reducing market choice for smaller firms.
Spain’s competition watchdog fined Apple and Amazon for collusion in online sales. The companies' 2018 agreement restricted competition by favouring Apple’s products and excluding competitors from Amazon’s platform, harming consumer choice in electronics.
The Nigerian Competition Commission fined BAT for abusing its dominance to penalise retailers that supported competing brands. The investigation revealed that BAT leveraged its power to suppress competition, violating public health regulations.
Ten UK construction companies were fined for cartel activity, including bid rigging on demolition contracts. This construction company collusion led to inflated costs and reduced service quality on key projects, including public institutions like universities and police training centres.
Copart was fined for violating merger rules during its acquisition of Hills Motors. The CMA determined that the company failed to comply with an Initial Enforcement Order, which required both firms to operate independently until the investigation concluded.
The football club colluded with JD Sports to limit competition in selling branded merchandise. Leicester City agreed to restrict prices, disadvantaging competitors and impacting customer access to cheaper alternatives.
"The fine that Leicester City FC and its parent companies have agreed to pay sends a clear message to them and other businesses that anti-competitive collusion will not be tolerated."
- Michael Grenfell, Executive Director of Enforcement, CMA
Australia’s financial regulator penalised Interactive Brokers for allowing a trader to engage in spoofing, a market manipulation technique. Despite receiving warnings, the firm failed to act, enabling further suspicious activities.
The CMA fined Asda for non-compliance during its fuel pricing inquiry. Asda failed to provide the requested data and sent representatives unable to address critical investigation topics.
"Drivers buying fuel at supermarkets in 2022 have paid around 6 pence per litre more than they would have done otherwise due to the four major supermarkets increasing their margins. This will have had a greater impact on vulnerable people, particularly those in areas with less choice of fuel stations. We need to reignite competition among fuel retailers."
- Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive, CMA
Pharmaceutical giants Pfizer and Flynn were fined for overcharging the NHS for epilepsy medication. After rebranding the drug to avoid price caps, the companies increased prices by up to 1,600%, costing the NHS millions annually. The CMA concluded this abuse of dominance harmed the public healthcare system.
Mastercard and four other firms (Allpay, Advanced Payment Solutions (APS), Prepaid Financial Services (PFS) and Sulion) engaged in cartel behaviour in the prepaid cards market. The Payment Systems Regulator found the companies agreed not to compete for public sector contracts, limiting choice and inflating costs for local authorities.
Focus and three other pharmaceutical companies were fined for limiting supply and increasing prices of anti-nausea drugs. Their collusion caused a 700% price hike, forcing the NHS to pay significantly more for essential medication.
“These firms conspired to stifle competition in the supply of this important medication so that the NHS – the main buyer of the drugs – lost the opportunity for increased choice and lower prices."
- CEO,CMA
The CMA fined JD Sports for sharing sensitive commercial information with Footasylum during their blocked merger. JD Sports failed to prevent breaches of confidentiality, undermining the merger review process.
Dar Lighting was fined for restricting the online discounting of its products. By limiting price competition, the company deprived consumers of the benefits of shopping around.
Meta (formerly Facebook) breached UK competition law during its merger with Giphy. The CMA penalised Meta for failing to disclose significant business changes, such as key staff resignations, violating its obligations under the investigation.
Italy’s competition authority fined Google for blocking a rival electric vehicle app from accessing its Android Auto platform. The authority determined Google’s actions unfairly limited consumer choice and protected its services from competition.
JPMorgan settled with regulators for manipulating the precious metals market through spoofing, a practice of placing fake trades to influence prices. The bank’s activities misled other traders and distorted market conditions over several years.
Several steel companies (CDP Bharat Forge and Bharat Forge CDP - both belonging to the Indian Bharat Forge group - and Johann Hay GmbH & Co. KG Automobiltechnik) were fined for exchanging sensitive pricing and market information over 14 years. Their cartel agreements drove up costs for manufacturers and consumers across Europe.
The Federal Court of Australia fined WWO for participating in a shipping cartel. The company colluded with competitors to allocate routes for vehicle imports, raising shipping costs and reducing competition.
Valve and five gaming publishers (Bandai Namco, Capcom, Focus Home, Koch Media and ZeniMax) were fined by the European Commission for geo-blocking PC games. Their agreements prevented consumers from activating games purchased in lower-priced regions, restricting cross-border trade.
Roland was fined for restricting online discounts on its electronic drum kits. The CMA also increased the fine due to Roland's breach of a settlement agreement during the investigation.
France’s competition watchdog fined Google for anti-competitive practices in online advertising. The company’s opaque and inconsistent rules for suspending advertisers limited fair competition in the digital ad market.
The European Commission fined these pharmaceutical companies for violating EU competition law via a pay-for-delay agreement that postponed the entry of cheaper generic versions of a sleep disorder drug. This collusion harmed patients and healthcare providers across the EU.
The CMA fined Compare the Market for imposing contract clauses that restricted insurers from offering lower prices on other platforms. These actions stifled competition and inflated insurance premiums.
Apotex was fined for price-fixing in the generic medication market. The company colluded with competitors to maintain artificially high prices for cholesterol drugs.
NBCUniversal faced penalties for restricting cross-border sales of licensed merchandise. This practice, which involved hundreds of products, denied consumers access to better prices across the EU.
These car part suppliers were fined for operating cartels that fixed prices and divided markets for components like door latches and window regulators. Their actions increased costs for manufacturers and consumers.
The CMA fined these musical instrument manufacturers for restricting online discounts. Their ‘resale price maintenance’ agreements prevented customers from benefiting from competitive pricing.
Fender was penalised for illegal price-fixing in its guitar sales. The company pressured retailers to maintain high online prices, limiting competition and consumer choice.
"Quite simply, this behaviour is against the law. The fact the CMA has imposed large fines on major musical instrument firms Casio and Fender in a matter of months should be a lesson to this industry and any other company considering illegal behaviour."
- Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive, CMA
Several pharmaceutical companies (King Pharmaceuticals, Auden Mckenzie, Accord-UK, Lexon (UK) Ltd and Alissa Healthcare Research) colluded to fix prices and divide markets for antidepressant drugs. Their actions artificially inflated costs, impacting the NHS and taxpayers.
"If pharmaceutical companies get together to restrict competition for the supply of a drug, this can lead to the NHS - and ultimately the UK taxpayer - paying over the odds for what are often essential medical treatments."
- Geoff Steadman, CMA
We have created a series of comprehensive roadmaps to help you navigate the compliance landscape, supported by several financial crime prevention courses in our Essentials Library.
We also have 100+ free compliance training aids, including assessments, best practice guides, checklists, desk aids, eBooks, games, posters, training presentations and even e-learning modules!
Finally, the SkillcastConnect community provides a unique opportunity to network with other compliance professionals in a vendor-free environment, priority access to our free online learning portal and other exclusive benefits.