April marks the first anniversary of the UK’s new consumer protection regime. The introduction of direct enforcement powers for the CMA, and significant financial penalties for non-compliance, has fundamentally changed the consumer protection landscape. The past year has seen proactive CMA engagement with businesses, a wealth of new and updated guidance, over 150 advisory and warning letters, no less than 14 new enforcement cases, and the first substantive and procedural fines for non-compliance. We look back on the regime’s first year and consider what’s next.
Building compliance: CMA guidance and outreach
The CMA’s initial work has focused on bolstering compliance with the new regime, both through issuing extensive guidance and directly engaging with businesses. Its latest guidance documents, reflecting its priority enforcement areas, cover dynamic pricing, price transparency, green claims, drip pricing, and agentic AI, while it has also issued guidance for businesses on how it uses its direct consumer enforcement powers, and gathers information. Revised unfair terms guidance is currently under review, with updates expected later this year.
Alongside guidance, the CMA has outlined its strategy and expectations in a range of speeches and blog posts, and sought feedback from businesses via webinars, roundtable events, and “bootcamps”, as well as through more bespoke forums – for example, the CMA’s Growth and Investment Council. Determined to ensure its endeavours aren’t Pointless, the CMA has even enlisted Alexander Armstrong to deliver accessible, punchy, and business-facing guidance on drip pricing.
From guidance to action: early CMA enforcement
The first year has not been solely about encouraging compliance. In the second half of “year one”, the CMA has been active in flexing its direct enforcement powers, focusing on what it considers are the most egregious unfair commercial practices. As predicted, pricing practices and online reviews have been at the forefront of early enforcement. The CMA has opened 14 public investigations, and sent at least 150 advisory letters to businesses in relation to online reviews and pricing practices.
Reinforcing its procedural “teeth”, the CMA issued a fine of almost £500,000 for non-compliance with an information notice back in February – the first use of penalties under the new regime (representing 75% of the maximum fine available) which is currently under appeal. Most recently, the CMA this week issued its first substantive fine under the new regime, ordering AA to pay £4.2 million, as well as £760,000 in customer refunds to settle the CMA’s investigation into its pricing practices.
Zooming in on the investigations launched:
- Online pricing and sales practices: the November 2025 investigations (the first direct enforcement cases under the new regime) concern drip pricing, time-limited discounting practices, and default opt-ins, across a range of sectors, including ticketing, gyms and e-commerce. These cases have likely been chosen as “easy wins” for the CMA as they are unfair without the CMA needing to prove the alleged unfairness had any impact. These are also areas where we have detailed CMA guidance and the prior Wowcher investigation which secured undertakings and refunds in relation to such practices. In parallel with the investigation launches, 100 advisory letters were sent to other businesses, outlining potential concerns with similar online sales tactics and putting those businesses on notice of potential future enforcement action.
- Cancellation fees: the investigation into Adobe’s cancellation fees, announced in March this year, follows a long tradition of OFT and CMA work on cancellation fees across a range of sectors, for example, gyms, timeshare products, package holidays and online dating. The case will however, be one of the first subject to the “transactional decision” test. Unlike the November 2025 investigations, the CMA will need to show that practices related to these cancellation fees caused the “average consumer” to make a transactional decision which they would not otherwise have taken, making this a less straightforward enforcement case.
- Fake reviews: the most recent investigations (also opened in March) – brought against Autotrader, Feefo, Dignity, Just Eat and Pasta Evangelists – tackle concerns related to fake and misleading reviews. Notably, these proceedings follow advisory letters issued to 54 businesses in July 2025 about preventing such reviews, which requested improved compliance with the law. These cases send a clear signal that where “softer” enforcement does not bring about compliance, investigations are likely to follow.
The year ahead: priorities and pressure points
Championing the consumer
Championing consumers remains the key strategic objective for the CMA, particularly on essential expenses, amid rising costs and geopolitical instability. The CMA’s ongoing review of the heating oil sector is a clear example of these drivers at play.
The CMA is likely to continue to focus on priority areas, such as drip pricing and fake reviews, which the CMA views as key to driving consumer confidence and where enforcement is more clear-cut (for more detail, see our deep-dive blog post).
The CMA’s approach to enforcement will continue to be driven by the “4Ps” agenda, making use of all the tools in its rather extensive “toolkit” to achieve results quickly. The six-month turnaround from launch to settlement in the AA investigation illustrates this approach in practice. Future enforcement may follow the precedent set by the CMA so far – initial “softer” enforcement via advisory letters coupled with formal investigations (and potentially significant penalties) where there are persistent or continued breaches of the rules. The CMA’s message is clear – they are continuously monitoring online practices, including using advanced AI tools!
Changes on the horizon: subscription contracts
New rules on subscription contracts are expected in Spring 2027, so now’s the time to review this aspect of your business – if you haven’t already. Key provisions include the implementation of straightforward cancellations, including an online exit for online sign-ups, mandatory cooling off periods, and reminders before subscriptions renew or trials end.
Greater clarity to come?
This summer will see the Emma Sleep case play out in court. With it, businesses are likely to get greater clarity on the court’s expectation of compliant discounting practices. The CMA’s cancellation fees investigation may also shed some light on the CMA’s approach to, for example, the “transactional decision” test, the “average consumer” definition, and the role of behavioural economics in these sorts of consumer investigations.
Watch this space for key updates on the rapidly changing world of consumer protection in the UK.
For further information, please contact:
Bruce Kilpatrick, Partner, Linklaters
bruce.kilpatrick@linklaters.com
