Updated 2026-09-29 · 5 verified cases · how to cite
EAA Enforcement Tracker
Most "EAA fines" pages show a table of maximum statutory penalties per country and stop there. That answers what could happen, not what has happened. This page tracks the second question: real cases, real regulators, real outcomes. Every entry links to its own source, and the underlying data is published as JSON so it can be checked and reused.
Verified cases
5
Member states with public activity
2 of 27
Court rulings
2
EAA fines confirmed paid
0
Worried your own site is exposed? Run a free scan and get a prioritised fix list before a court has to tell you. Analyze your website →
The one fact that matters most
As of 2026-09-29, no company has been confirmed to have paid an EAA-linked fine anywhere in the EU. There is real legal activity, including a court order and regulator supervision, but the penalty tables quoted everywhere, including onour own country pages, are statutory maximums rather than amounts anyone has been charged. Treat this page, not the fines tables, as the answer to whether this has cost anyone money yet.
The cases
Each case has its own permanent link. Absence from this list means we could not verify an event against a named source, not that it did not happen.
First EAA-transposition lawsuits filed in Europe #
Brought by
apiDV and Droit Pluriel
Against
Auchan, Carrefour, E.Leclerc, Picard Surgelés
What happened
Emergency injunction proceedings (référé) filed against all four retailers, each before a different French court (Lille, Caen, Créteil, Fontainebleau).
Outcome
Auchan (Lille) and Carrefour (Caen) were decided in 2026. The E.Leclerc hearing in Créteil, set for 5 May 2026, was postponed to 22 September 2026; no ruling had been published as of our last review. We have not found a published outcome for Picard.
The court dismissed the case without finding the site accessible. Auchan's own audit had found strong or major non-conformities in 13 of 19 tested sections. The dismissal turned on a narrower legal question: the court read the accessibility obligation through a French law provision carrying a 250 million euro revenue threshold rather than the EU directive's 2 million euro threshold the associations argued for.
Outcome
Dismissed. Appealed by the associations to the Cour d'appel de Douai, which they describe as a gravely mistaken interpretation of EU digital accessibility law.
Fine paid
None confirmed
Note on the date
Droit Pluriel's headline dates the decision 6 May 2026 while its body text refers to Tuesday 5 May. We use the headline date and flag the discrepancy rather than silently picking one.
Carrefour ordered to make its site and app accessible within six months #
Court
Tribunal judiciaire de Caen
Brought by
apiDV and Droit Pluriel
Against
Carrefour
What happened
The court ordered carrefour.fr and its mobile app to be made fully accessible within six months, rejecting Carrefour's argument that accessibility is an obligation of means rather than of result: the site cannot be only partially accessible, it must be totally accessible.
Outcome
Compliance order. Continued non-compliance after the six-month deadline, which falls around December 2026, triggers a penalty for each day of delay. That penalty has not been triggered.
The authority coordinating Swedish EAA enforcement, with specific responsibility for e-commerce, banking and communications, began examining e-commerce companies against the accessibility requirements, reviewing each company's homepage, a product page and its search function. Seven companies under review had grown to seventeen by the time PTS reported on it.
Outcome
Examinations continuing in stages through 2025 and 2026. No fine confirmed.
Fine paid
None confirmed
Note on the date
PTS opened its first supervisory cases during 2025; we have not confirmed a precise opening date, so this entry is dated to the year rather than to a day.
Two French decisions a month apart went opposite ways, and the difference is the most useful thing on this page. Lille dismissed the Auchan case on a threshold question without finding the site accessible. Caen rejected the argument that accessibility is an obligation of means rather than of result, and ordered a fix inside six months.
The Caen reasoning is the one to read twice: partial accessibility did not count as a defence. If your business falls under the EAA and has not been checked, the working assumption should be the standard that court applied, not a good-faith attempt. SeeEAA for e-commerce for what gets checked first.
Everywhere else
Compliance-industry trackers report investigations and complaints beginning in member states beyond France and Sweden, but we could not independently verify country-by-country specifics the way we could for the cases above, so they are not listed here and not counted in the figures. What can be said with confidence: public enforcement so far is concentrated in a handful of member states, it is moving through both courts and regulators, and most of the EU has not seen a single public case yet.
Citing this tracker
This page is maintained as a source. If you are writing about EAA enforcement, quote the cases and link the entry rather than the page, so your readers land on what you cited: every case above has a permanent anchor, listed in the JSON as its id.
Reuse the data with attribution and a link back. If you find an enforcement event we have missed, or a correction, the contact address is on the about page — corrections with a named source get made and dated.
Compiled from public court records, regulator publications and press reporting, each linked on the case it supports. This is not a legal database and not legal advice. Cases move, get appealed and get reinterpreted: every entry is accurate as of 2026-09-29 rather than live. For the legal framework, penalties and exemptions, see thefull EAA guide.