Consequences of Non-Compliance

ESPR non-compliance carries fines, import bans, market withdrawal, and criminal liability. Here is what enforcement actually looks like.

The enforcement landscape

Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 does not specify a single EU-wide penalty scale — it requires each member state to establish penalties that are "effective, proportionate and dissuasive." In practice, this creates a patchwork of enforcement intensities, but the consequences themselves are consistent and severe.

ESPR enforcement is layered: market surveillance authorities in each EU country monitor products already on the market, while customs authorities control imports at the border. Both channels are active.

Financial penalties

Member States set the penalties. They must take account of factors such as the nature, gravity and duration of the infringement, the economic benefit gained and the environmental damage caused, and they must at least be able to impose fines and time-limited exclusion from public procurement procedures (Art. 74(2) and (3)) (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781). The ESPR sets no EU-wide fine level. Some other EU laws do: under the EUDR, for example, the maximum fine for a legal person must be at least 4% of its total annual Union-wide turnover (Regulation (EU) 2023/1115, Art. 25(2)(a)). That rule does not apply to ESPR breaches.

Penalty levels and the intensity of market surveillance therefore differ between Member States, so exposure depends on where products are sold.

Under the CSRD framework (Directive (EU) 2022/2464), companies that misreport sustainability information face separate penalties, which each Member State sets under the Accounting Directive (Directive 2013/34/EU, Art. 51) (EUR-Lex).

Product withdrawal and market bans

If a product is found non-compliant by a market surveillance authority, the authority has the power to:

• Issue a corrective action order requiring the manufacturer or importer to bring the product into compliance within a fixed deadline
• Order withdrawal from sale — removing the product from retailer shelves and online listings
• Order a market recall — requiring the company to contact customers who have already purchased the product and offer remediation
• Impose an import ban — blocking all future imports of the product category until compliance is demonstrated

Enforcement is not theoretical. In 2025, 4,671 alerts were notified in Safety Gate, the EU rapid alert system for dangerous non-food products, the highest number since the system was launched in 2003. National authorities also notified 5,794 follow-up actions, including withdrawals, stops at the border, removal of online listings and recalls (European Commission, 5 March 2026).

Customs detention and seizure

Under EU market surveillance rules (Regulation (EU) 2019/1020), customs authorities can detain products at the border pending verification of compliance documentation. A product without a valid DPP — once DPP requirements apply to its category — will be treated as a non-compliant import.

Detained goods generate:

• Storage costs that accrue by the day
• Inspection and testing fees
• Delayed delivery, triggering contractual penalties with retail buyers
• In the worst case, destruction of detained goods at the importer's expense

Customs authorities are also asking for more product data. From 1 November 2026, customs declarations for goods sold in distance sales must give product identifiers for each item, including a standardised manufacturer identifier, such as an EAN, where one exists (Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1022; Commission guidance, 5 October 2026). The new Union Customs Code, Regulation (EU) 2026/2108, applies from 21 September 2027. Its recital 5 names the digital product passport as one of the new tools that will help customs apply product rules. The recital does not by itself create a customs obligation (EUR-Lex).

Supply chain rejection

Beyond regulatory enforcement, non-compliance creates commercial consequences upstream and downstream.

Retailers and large buyers — particularly in the automotive, electronics, and fashion sectors — are increasingly requiring DPP compliance as a contract condition. A supplier that cannot provide a valid DPP may be delisted or replaced, regardless of price competitiveness.

Banks and insurers are beginning to require ESG compliance documentation for trade finance and product liability policies. Non-compliant companies may find themselves unable to secure financing for EU-market inventory.

Criminal liability

Where non-compliance is found to be deliberate or systematic, EU member states may treat violations as criminal offenses under national product safety laws. Directors and officers of companies can face personal liability — including fines and, in some jurisdictions, imprisonment — if they knowingly placed non-compliant products on the market.

The DPP-specific enforcement path

For Digital Product Passports specifically, the ESPR adds a DPP registry, which the Commission was required to set up by 19 July 2026. It stores at least each product's unique identifiers, the commodity code for products to be released for free circulation and any other data a delegated act specifies. The Commission, competent national authorities and customs authorities have access to it (Art. 13). Once the registry is operational, anyone releasing a covered product for free circulation must give customs its unique registration identifier, and once the registry is connected to the EU customs single window, customs will check it automatically before release (Art. 15) (Regulation (EU) 2024/1781).

A product on the market after a DPP requirement enters force for its category, without a valid registered DPP, is non-compliant by definition. This is verifiable at the point of sale.

The cost of late action

Companies that begin compliance work after an enforcement deadline passes face compounding costs: retrospective remediation across an existing product catalogue, emergency supplier audits, consultant fees at premium rates, and ongoing regulatory scrutiny.

Companies that begin now — before product-specific delegated acts enter force — have the option to build DPP infrastructure incrementally, absorb supplier onboarding costs across a longer timeline, and avoid the premium associated with crisis compliance.

References

• Regulation (EU) 2024/1781 (ESPR), Article 74 (penalties), Article 13 (DPP registry) and Article 15 (customs controls)
• EU market surveillance framework: Regulation (EU) 2019/1020
• European Commission, Safety Gate 2025 annual report, press release IP/26/537 (5 March 2026)
• Delegated Regulation (EU) 2026/1022 (product identifiers in customs declarations for distance sales)
• Regulation (EU) 2026/2108 (Union Customs Code), recital 5
• Directive 2013/34/EU (Accounting Directive, as amended by the CSRD, Directive (EU) 2022/2464), Article 51 (penalties)
• Regulation (EU) 2023/1115 (EUDR), Article 25(2)(a) (maximum fine of at least 4% of total annual Union-wide turnover)
• Battery Regulation enforcement: Regulation (EU) 2023/1542, Article 93 (penalties, set by Member States; no EU-wide maximum)