21.8.2020

New Consumer Protection Tools: Penalty Payment for Consumer Protection Violations Possible as of 15 July 2020

Related services

The EU’s Regulation on cooperation between national authorities responsible for the enforcement of consumer protection laws (EU 2017/2394) has been implemented in Finland through new national provisions that entered into force in mid-July. Among other things, the new provisions expand the Finnish Consumer Ombudsman’s toolkit for intervening in various violations of consumer protection legislation.

The most relevant change is a new administrative sanction, a penalty payment, that can be imposed by the Market Court based on a proposal of the Consumer Ombudsman. In cases within the jurisdiction of the Finnish Financial Supervisory Authority, the FIN-FSA can impose the penalty payments itself.

The adoption of penalty payments gives the Consumer Ombudsman more robust means to intervene in consumer protection violations. The Consumer Ombudsman was previously not able to impose administrative financial sanctions on undertakings for violations of consumer protection provisions.

In addition to penalty payments, the Consumer Ombudsman now also has the power, for example, to order content on websites to be removed or block or restrict access to websites.

Penalty Payments Possible for, e.g. Hidden Advertising or False Advertising

Under the new Act on Certain Powers of Consumer Protection Authorities (566/2020), the authorities can now impose penalty payments for violations of numerous different consumer protection provisions.

A penalty payment can be imposed, for example, if the requirement for the identifiability of marketing is not complied with, i.e. if marketing does not clearly indicate its commercial purpose or on whose behalf the marketing is taking place. We wrote about the requirement for the identifiability of marketing in a previous blog.

It is also now possible to impose a penalty payment if marketing provides false or misleading or aggressive practices are used in a customer relationship. Aggressive practices include harassment, coercion and other compulsion of consumers that is liable to lead to the customer making a purchase or other decision relating to consumer goods that they would not have made without the compulsion.

In addition, penalty payments can be imposed, for example, for violations of or failure to comply with certain disclosure obligations under the Consumer Protection Act.  However, there is a higher threshold for imposing a penalty payment in certain situations relating to the disclosure obligation, i.e. a penalty payment can be imposed when the violation is likely to clearly undermine a consumer’s ability to make a considered purchase or other decision relating to consumer goods or to hinder a consumer’s ability to exercise their rights.

Penalty Payments up to Four Per Cent of Turnover

The amount of a penalty payment is always based on an overall assessment. The following factors are taken into consideration when imposing a penalty payment:

A penalty payment imposed on an undertaking can be a maximum of four per cent of the undertaking’s turnover for the year preceding the end of the violation in question.

Penalty Payments May Also Be Imposed on Management or Persons Exercising De Facto Control

In certain situations, a penalty payment can be imposed on natural persons working as management or exercising de facto control in a legal person. In that case, the penalty payment can be a maximum of four per cent of the person’s taxed income for the year preceding the end of the violation in question, but no more than EUR 40,000.

However, no penalty payment will be proposed or imposed under certain conditions. This may be the case if the violation is minor, if imposing a penalty payment must be deemed clearly unreasonable or if the undertaking has taken sufficient measures to rectify the violation immediately upon having become aware of it and the violation is not serious or repeated. A penalty payment need not be proposed or imposed if a conditional fine has been ordered to be paid or a petition for the payment of a conditional fine is pending with respect to the same violation.

Latest references

VR-Group Plc is a transport and logistics group owned by the Finnish State, operating passenger and freight rail transport in Finland with activities also in the Swedish market. VR Group provides passenger, logistics and maintenance services with over 160 years’ experience in developing responsible transport of the future. We advise VR Group in intellectual property matters as part of the company’s wider brand protection efforts. Our assignments have included advice on copyright, design rights and trademarks, focusing on the protection of the company’s visual identity – including its distinctive green colour – in connection with transport services as part of a comprehensive IP protection strategy. VR Group’s consistent brand building has also received recognition, including the Finland Chamber of Commerce’s Brand of the Year award in 2026. In the competition, brands were viewed comprehensively from various perspectives, including their story, strategic role, brand renewal ability and intellectual property protection. The jury found that VR had understood the importance of the protection of its brand as part of a comprehensive business strategy. 
Case published 9.9.2026
We are advising Anora Group in brand protection and intellectual property enforcement matters globally. Our IP team manages Anora Group’s global trademark and design portfolio, including registration, prosecution, opposition and enforcement. We also advise Anora Group in questions concerning marketing law, social media, domain names and cybersquatting. Anora Group Plc is a publicly listed company. It was born in 2021 through the merger of the Finnish Altia Oyj and the Norwegian Arcus ASA. Anora Group is a leading wine and spirits brand house in the Nordic Region and a global industry forerunner in sustainability. Anora Group has a large portfolio of iconic brands such as Koskenkorva, Linie, Larsen, Skagerrak, Chill Out, Ruby Zin, Wongraven, O.P. Anderson and Falling Feather. Its key brands are exported to over 30 markets globally.
Case published 28.1.2026
We are assisting Sinituote in the protection and enforcement of its trademarks and designs and in issues related to the management of its IP portfolio. Under the SINI brand, Sinituote markets and sells cleaning tools and products. SINI products are among the most popular ones in their product category in Finland. Kungs is the leading Nordic brand for automobile care. It includes winter products such as snow brushes and ice scrapers that are designed and tested to suit the extreme Finnish winter conditions. One of Sinituote’s most legendary products is the Sinipiika mop that was developed in the 1950s and is still in production today. In addition to SINI and Kungs, the Sinituote brands also include Savu, Lundia, Rörets and VS-Harja.  The products are designed and mostly also manufactured in Finland. Sinituote has its own factory in the small town of Kokemäki in southwestern Finland. The group’s R&D focuses not only on the high quality of the products but also their ergonomics, environmental friendliness and design. Sinituote makes considerable investments in R&D and design and also actively protects and enforces its trademarks and designs.
Case published 22.1.2026
We represent the Tactic Games Oy, a leading international developer and manufacturer of board games, as lead counsel in its global brand protection, EU-wide customs enforcement and trademark disputes concerning the famous MÖLKKY trademark. MÖLKKY is an award-winning outdoor game marketed and sold in Europe, Australia, USA and Canada. The Tactic Games Oy has been the exclusive distributor of the MÖLKKY game since 2010, and it purchased the manufacturing and intellectual property rights for the game from Lahden Työn Paikka Oy in January 2017. Tactic’s product portfolio includes also other well-known games, such as Kimble, Alias and iKNOW.
Case published 15.1.2026