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

We successfully represented a Finnish construction management consultancy and a safety coordinator employed by the company in criminal proceedings concerning an alleged occupational safety and health offence. The prosecutor sought a penalty for an alleged breach of occupational safety regulations. The charge arose from a fall accident at a construction site where our client acted as the safety coordinator appointed by the developer. We assessed the scope of the safety coordinator’s duties in relation to the responsibilities of the main contractor, as well as how our client had fulfilled their obligations in practice. We demonstrated that our client had acted with due care and in full compliance with their duties throughout the planning, preparation and execution of the construction project. The District Court of Eastern Uusimaa dismissed the charge against our client. The Court held that our client, in their capacity as safety coordinator, had duly fulfilled the occupational safety obligations incumbent on the developer during the planning and preparation phases of the construction project and had not been aware of the fall protection deficiency identified at the site. The judgment is final insofar as our client is concerned.
Case published 22.6.2026
We advised Efima Oyj on the sale of its financial management services business to Rantalainen as part of its strategic focus on fully concentrating on the delivery of business applications as well as data and AI solutions. As a result of the transaction, customer contracts related to financial management services and 65 experts working in these services will transfer to Rantalainen. The transaction will be carried out as a transfer of business, and the experts will move to the new owner as existing employees. Efima is a Finnish digital company that supports the sustainable growth of large and mid-sized companies by streamlining their business processes and by creating competitive advantage through the innovative use of artificial intelligence and data. The company has nearly 200 experts based in Helsinki and Tampere.
Case published 12.6.2026
We advised lead investor Ugly Duckling Ventures on the EUR 6.5 million funding round of Skyfora. The round also included Eviny Ventures, LUMO Labs and EIC Fund, alongside non-dilutive funding from Business Finland. The investment will support the commercial scale-up of Skyfora’s weather intelligence solutions, the expansion of partnerships with telecom operators, forecasting providers and meteorological institutions, and the continued growth of the team. Skyfora is a Finnish company developing high-resolution weather data solutions using patented technology that extracts atmospheric data from GNSS receivers embedded in existing infrastructure, such as telecom networks. By unlocking previously untapped data sources, Skyfora enables the next generation of AI-driven weather forecasting and supports improved decision-making across weather-sensitive industries. Ugly Duckling Ventures is a Copenhagen-based venture capital firm focused on early-stage Nordic B2B technology companies, with an emphasis on medtech, resilience tech and business services.
Case published 10.6.2026
castren snellman general atlantic iceye
We advised General Atlantic as the lead investor on ICEYE’s EUR 1 billion series F funding round, valuing the company at over EUR 10 billion. ICEYE raised EUR 450 million (USD 520 million) in a primary Series F funding round led by General Atlantic. Additional investors included Solidium, Tesi, Varma, Ilmarinen, Lifeline Ventures, Nokia, Qatar Investment Authority (QIA) and TCV. Together with a secondary placement, the total fundraising exceeds EUR 1 billion. ICEYE is the world leader in sovereign intelligence from space, providing continuous monitoring capabilities to detect and respond to changes in any location on Earth. The company operates the world’s largest and most advanced Synthetic Aperture Radar satellite constellation. General Atlantic is a leading global investor with more than four and a half decades of experience providing capital and strategic support for over 885 companies throughout its history. As of March 31, 2026, General Atlantic manages approximately USD 126 billion in assets across its investment strategies. We advised General Atlantic on this transaction in collaboration with the international law firm Paul, Weiss, Rifkind, Wharton & Garrison.
Case published 9.6.2026