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 advised Efima Oyj on the sale of its AI business to Better Care Technologies Oy. The transaction included Efima’s Moiva AI platform developed for the care sector, the related technology and brand, customer contracts, and the experts working in the business. 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 21.9.2026
We advised Neoen Renewables Finland Oy, part of the French Neoen Group, in its sale of a data centre project to a consortium consisting of international data centre developers and operators. This marked Neoen’s first data centre development project in Finland. Founded in 2008, Neoen is one of the world’s leading independent renewable energy producers. The company operates in 15 countries. It develops, finances, builds, owns, and operates solar power plants, wind farms, and battery storage systems. Neoen Group is owned by global alternative asset manager Brookfield Corporation.
Case published 17.9.2026
We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi in connection with their investment in VEV, a leading provider of commercial fleet electrification solutions. The investment, led by Jolt Capital with Tesi as co-investor, will support VEV’s next phase of growth and expansion across Europe. As part of the transaction, VEV became an independent company following the acquisition of Vitol’s stake in the business. Founded by Vitol, VEV provides integrated fleet electrification solutions combining fleet strategy, charging infrastructure, energy supply and operational services. Through its VEV IQ platform, the company supports more than 6,000 commercial electric vehicles across Europe and has been deployed across more than 600 sites spanning the transport, logistics and waste sectors. Jolt Capital is a private equity firm focused on growth investments in European deeptech companies. Tesi is a Finnish state-owned investment company that promotes Finnish business and economic growth through investments. We advised Jolt Capital and Tesi on the equity financing and structuring aspects of the transaction. International law firm Goodwin advised the investors on the acquisition of VEV.
Case published 10.9.2026
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