The UK Competition and Markets Authority has entered a new phase of consumer protection enforcement. On 18 November, it used the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 for the first time to launch direct consumer law enforcement against eight major companies. At the same time, it issued advisory letters to one hundred businesses across fourteen sectors and published updated guidance on price transparency and unfair commercial practices. The CMA now expects consumer facing companies to review online practices immediately and align them with the new legal framework before formal action follows.
Drip pricing investigations: ticketing, driving schools and gyms
The first set of cases focuses on drip pricing. This refers to the practice of withholding mandatory fees until late in the purchase journey. The CMA’s new powers allow it to impose fines of up to ten percent of global turnover for consumer law breaches. This places drip pricing in the same penalty bracket as hard-core competition infringements.
StubHub and Viagogo
Both secondary ticketing sites are being investigated for adding mandatory fees at checkout. This follows the CMA’s high profile review of Ticketmaster’s dynamic pricing for Oasis tickets last year, which highlighted inconsistent fee presentation and concerns over consumer fairness. The government has now separately announced plans to ban the resale of tickets above face value. The combination of legislative pressure and CMA action places the ticketing sector firmly in the enforcement spotlight.
AA Driving School and BSM Driving School
The CMA is assessing whether mandatory fees were omitted from the total price at the start of the booking journey. Driving lessons sit within a category often cited in CMA guidance as vulnerable to unclear pricing practices, particularly where consumers purchase services in packages or instalments.
Gold’s Gym
The investigation focuses on whether joining fees were introduced part way through the sign-up process rather than being presented as part of the advertised price. Gym membership models have long been associated with opaque pricing or conditional fees. This case signals that such practices will now face a more assertive regulatory response.
Pressure selling cases: countdown clocks and default add-ons
A second investigative stream targets misleading urgency claims and opt-out selling. The CMA has been warning for over two years that countdown timers and automatic add-ons are likely to mislead consumers. These are now among the first practices tested under the DMCC Act.
Wayfair
The question for the CMA is whether time-limited promotions genuinely ended when advertised. Past investigations have shown that repeated or rolling discount cycles risk breaching the rules on misleading claims if the urgency is artificial.
Marks Electrical and Appliances Direct
Both cases examine default opt-ins for additional services such as warranties or installation. The CMA regards forced opt-ins as inherently problematic because they rely on consumer inattention. Appliances Direct will also be reviewed for its use of time-limited promotions.
Advisory letters: one hundred businesses put on notice
Alongside the formal cases, the CMA issued advisory letters to one hundred businesses across sectors including transport, homeware, parking, food delivery, vouchers, fashion, gyms and holiday services. These letters do not initiate investigations. Instead they act as formal warnings. Any recurrence of similar practices is likely to trigger direct enforcement. Compliance teams should assume that advisory letters reflect the practices the CMA expects the entire market to fix without delay.
Why the CMA is acting now: the DMCC Act and its enforcement tools
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act has transformed the CMA’s role. It introduced:
- A duty of expedition which requires the CMA to act as quickly as reasonably possible
- Direct consumer enforcement powers that do not require court action
- Maximum penalties of ten percent of global turnover
- The ability to seek Director Disqualification Orders for serious consumer law breaches
The CMA intends to provide updates on the eight active investigations by March 2026. Achieving provisional findings within five months would be significantly faster than typical Competition Act cases, which often involve vast amounts of data. Businesses should expect short deadlines, broad information requests and robust evidence standards.
A rise in civil enforcement and director accountability
The CMA is increasingly using personal accountability tools. It is already seeking its first Competition Director Disqualification Order against directors of Cinven for excessive pricing in a pharmaceuticals case involving a portfolio company. The DMCC Act adds consumer law as a second route to director disqualification. Senior management should therefore treat consumer compliance as both an organisational and a personal risk area.
Lessons from competition enforcement: what compliance teams should prepare for
The CMA intends to run consumer investigations with the same structure and intensity as Competition Act 1998 cases. This has important compliance implications.
Prepare for extensive document requests
Past investigations have required terabytes of material. Companies should map their data early and assign internal ownership for production, review and legal oversight.
Resourcing matters
The CMA will expect companies to allocate appropriate staff, including senior decision-makers. Under-resourcing or delays can be interpreted as lack of cooperation.
Evidence review must start early
Internal emails, pricing models, A/B tests, marketing briefs and conversion analytics all become key evidence. Understanding these materials before sharing them with the regulator strengthens any defence or settlement strategy.
Settlement requires timing and strategy
The CMA expects informed engagement. Settling too early, before the evidence landscape is clear, creates unnecessary risk. Given the possibility of penalties of up to ten percent of global turnover and personal liability for directors, companies should treat settlement negotiations as a structured compliance decision.
What compliance teams should do now
- Review all online purchase journeys, including checkouts, add-ons and discount cycles
- Audit fee presentation to confirm that mandatory charges are disclosed upfront
- Assess use of urgency claims and promotions for accuracy and evidence support
- Review opt-in and opt-out design to ensure that consumers make clear and active choices
- Gather and organise internal documents so that evidence is ready before enquiries begin
- Brief directors on the CMA’s new powers, including personal accountability
