EAA sanctions — criminal liability and market bans
Most organisations think about EAA enforcement in terms of financial penalties. The financial penalties are real. But EAA sanctions operate through three distinct mechanisms, and for organisations in Ireland or Sweden, the non-financial consequences are often the more significant ones.
When people search for “EAA sanctions,” they are usually looking for one of two things: how severe is the enforcement, and does it go beyond fines? The answer to both is yes. EAA enforcement involves three distinct sanction types across the markets where enforcement is most active. Understanding which applies to your organisation, and why, is the starting point for assessing your actual exposure.
No financial penalties have been issued in any market as of June 2026. Enforcement is active — investigations are open, audits are underway, complaints are being processed — but penalty decisions have not yet been published. That does not mean the risk is not real. It means the first decisions, when they arrive, will set the precedent that shapes enforcement for years to come.
Administrative financial penalties
Financial penalties are the most widely known EAA sanction type. Each market sets its own ceiling, and enforcement authorities use their own criteria for the amount applied within that range. Ceilings are maximums, not typical amounts. First-instance violations in practice tend to attract significantly lower figures.
ACM and AFM
Up to 10% of annual turnover, with a ceiling of €900,000. In practice, administrative fines for first-instance violations typically fall in the range of €5,000–€100,000. The ACM is conducting active audits. For financial services organisations, the relevant authority is the AFM, not the ACM, with the same enforcement mandate and the same ceiling.
PTS
SEK 10,000–SEK 10,000,000 per occurrence for failing to report or cooperate with PTS. This is a range, not just a ceiling. It applies regardless of whether the underlying accessibility issues have been fixed. An organisation that has completed its remediation work but failed to respond to a PTS request can still face a Sanktionsavgift.
PTS
A separate fine for accessibility issues that remain unremediated after a grace period set by PTS. The Vite has a different trigger and different calculation from the Sanktionsavgift. An organisation can face both simultaneously, and both are independent of any market ban decision.
Bundesnetzagentur and private litigation
The Bundesnetzagentur can impose fines of up to €100,000 per violation. Separately, law firms and competitors can send private warning letters (Abmahnungen) under German competition law (UWG) — typically demanding €1,000–€3,000 plus a signed compliance declaration. Abmahnungen are not regulatory fines. They are a private litigation mechanism that operates independently of any regulator.
ARCOM and civil courts
Fines of €1,500 per offence for individuals and €7,500 per offence for legal entities. Repeat offences double these amounts. Systemic non-compliance can attract an aggregate ceiling of €250,000. As of June 2026, cases are pending but no fines have been issued. France’s first EAA enforcement actions were brought by disability organisations before the civil courts, not by a regulator.
Criminal sanctions — Ireland only
Ireland is the only EU member state where EAA non-compliance can result in criminal conviction. This is a materially different category of sanction from an administrative fine. A criminal conviction goes on record. It attaches to individuals, not only to companies. And it can result in imprisonment.
Under S.I. No. 636/2023, Ireland’s transposition of the EAA, serious or persistent non-compliance can be prosecuted as a criminal offence. The penalties on conviction are:
- On summary conviction (lower courts): a fine up to €5,000 and/or imprisonment up to 6 months
- On conviction on indictment (higher courts): a fine up to €60,000 and/or imprisonment up to 18 months
Where a company commits an offence, directors, managers, secretaries, and other officers of that company can be held personally liable. The liability does not stop at the corporate level. It follows the individuals whose decisions, actions, or neglect contributed to the non-compliance.
ComReg is already processing formal complaints, including one against Ireland’s largest mobile operator. Enforcement has started.
The due diligence defence. Irish law provides that a defendant who can demonstrate they exercised due diligence may have a defence against the criminal charge. In practice, this means documented evidence of active accessibility management: dated assessments, remediation records, a named owner, and a process that shows the organisation was not simply ignoring its obligations. A single historic audit is not sufficient. The evidence needs to show ongoing management, not a one-off exercise.
The due diligence defence is the reason a structured compliance programme matters in Ireland beyond the accessibility work itself. It is the difference between a defensible position and personal liability for the directors involved. See our Ireland compliance guide for the full detail.
Market bans and product withdrawal
Sweden’s PTS has a power that goes beyond financial penalties: it can prohibit the sale or distribution of non-compliant products and services within Sweden. A market ban is a sanction that operates entirely independently of the Sanktionsavgift and the Vite. PTS can apply all three simultaneously.
For many organisations, a market ban is the most severe consequence available. Losing access to the Swedish market — even temporarily — can represent a greater commercial impact than the maximum financial penalty, particularly for organisations where Sweden is a meaningful revenue source. The ban applies to products and services, not just websites. A non-compliant app, a non-compliant digital service, a non-compliant product offering — all are in scope.
PTS’s proactive inspection programme, which launched in October 2025, means market ban authority is not theoretical. The 28 supervisory investigations already opened — including named inspections of H&M, IKEA, and Coop — establish that PTS is actively using its enforcement powers. Penalty decisions, including possible market ban orders, are expected throughout 2026.
Three sanctions, three independent tracks. In Sweden, the Sanktionsavgift, the Vite, and a market ban are three separate enforcement mechanisms. Fixing the accessibility issue does not eliminate exposure to the Sanktionsavgift if you have failed to cooperate with PTS. Cooperating with PTS does not eliminate the Vite if accessibility issues remain unremediated. All three tracks need managing independently.
What determines your exposure
Your sanction exposure depends primarily on where your products and services are offered, not where your organisation is headquartered. A company based in Dublin selling to Swedish consumers is subject to PTS enforcement. A company based in Amsterdam selling to Irish consumers is subject to ComReg enforcement and Irish criminal liability provisions.
The disproportionate burden exemption does not eliminate sanction exposure. An undocumented claim of disproportionate burden is itself a compliance failure. See our disproportionate burden guide for what the exemption actually requires.
Find out where your organisation stands
Our free initial assessment covers your compliance position across the markets where you operate, what sanction exposure applies, and what a proportionate next step looks like.
Book your free assessment