The Durham Law Review is a student-run society commenting on contemporary legal and commercial issues. Meanwhile, it publishes feature articles alongside Regular commercial and legal updates.

Price Transparency and Consumer Protection: The CMA’s New Enforcement Powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024

Price Transparency and Consumer Protection: The CMA’s New Enforcement Powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024

Introduction

Online shopping has become an ordinary part of everyday life, yet the way prices are presented to consumers remains unclear. Practices such as hidden mandatory fees, misleading “limited-time” discounts, and unclear promotional pricing have become common across many products, such as ticketing and household goods. These practices raise significant concerns about transparency and fairness in the market and informed consumer choice. To combat this, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 was introduced and came into force in 2025 [1].

This essay argues that the DMCC Act made a positive change to UK consumer protection by comparing the highly criticised previous system of enforcement with the current legal framework. The CMA’s enforcement activity against misleading pricing practices since the Act will then be discussed, followed by the broader effects and legal implications of the Act, as well as the potential concerns it raises.

The Evolution of the Legal Framework

Traditionally, the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs) had been the main body of laws governing misleading pricing practices in the UK [2]. The Trading Standards Services and the CMA largely governed the enforcement of consumer protection laws. However, the enforcement of these laws has often been criticised for being ineffective. A report published in 2011 on the system for enforcing consumer law by the Parliament highlighted that consumers lose an estimated £4.8 billion each year through regional or national malpractice, and the enforcement system for dealing with scams of this level is inadequate [3].  It further commented that the system in place to protect customers had not kept up with new changes and was not properly equipped to tackle new problems as they emerged [4]. With evolving technology, an increasing number of new methods to charge consumers have been curated. The old system was insufficient to fully protect consumer interests, especially as the means of digital purchases grow.

The DMCC Act 2024 is the primary legislation that reshapes aspects of both competition and consumer law in the UK. One of the most important amongst these is the updates on the rules on unfair commercial practices, including unjustified omissions in consumer pricing and other deceptive conduct. Specifically, Part 4 of the Act contains provisions designed to protect consumers from unfair commercial practices, including misleading or incomplete pricing information. The Act makes clear that traders must provide material information, including the full price consumers will have to pay, when making an invitation to purchase [5].  This greatly eliminates the unfairness and uncertainty of additional hidden fees, better protecting the interests of consumers.

The significance of the DMCC Act also extends to its enforcement. Previously, consumer protection law was enforced mainly through traditional court proceedings under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. The DMCC Act enables the CMA to enforce consumer protection standards, such as imposing civil penalties and orders without requiring prior court action [6]. This streamlines the enforcement process, allowing for the CMA to directly take action upon investigation and finding of unfair pricing practices, without having to gain prior approval from a third-party authority.

Enforcement in Practice

            The first concrete effects of the new law were seen in November 2025, when the CMA launched a major consumer protection drive, opening investigations into eight different businesses for potentially unlawful online pricing practices [7]. These investigations target companies across sectors, including ticketing, fitness services, driving schools, and home goods retailers. The firms under investigation include the ticketing platforms StubHub and viagogo, driving schools such as AA Driving School and BSM, gym operator Gold’s Gym, and retailers Wayfair, Appliances Direct, and Marks Electrical. The CMA is examining practices such as drip pricing, which is when an initial price for a good or service is presented to customers, while other additional fees are revealed later in the checkout process [8]. Other practices, such as the use of hidden mandatory fees and misleading countdown sales offers, were to be investigated as well. Aside from opening formal investigations, the CMA sent advisory letters to approximately 100 businesses across 14 different industries to highlight concerns around pricing practices and to encourage voluntary compliance with the law [9]. This reflects how the CMA has been working to ensure consumer rights are better protected through active investigation of corporations and providing compliance guidance. These investigations demonstrate the regulator’s willingness to utilise its new direct enforcement powers, showing a positive shift in consumer protection enforcement.

Evaluating the New Consumer Protection Regime

            The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 reflects a broader policy judgment that price transparency is fundamental to ensure consumer protection and promote trust in consumers in digital markets. Cochrane wrote in her blog that price transparency is important for both consumers and protecting other businesses [10]. She emphasises that dishonest displays of prices by businesses can greatly undermine consumer trust. Aside from this, it also risks weakening competitive pressure, preventing competitors from “competing on a level playing field” as consumers are less able to compare offers accurately [11]. Through decreased consumer confidence and lowered market competition, unfair pricing practices are also likely to harm the economy as a whole.

             Despite the policy appeal of stronger consumer protection, there are potential concerns regarding legal certainty under the new regime. Although the DMCC Act and accompanying guidance clarify that unavoidable charges should generally be included in the headline price, the application of these principles may be challenging in complex commercial contexts. Legal practitioners have commented that it has been historically accepted for online retailers to show prices exclusive of delivery charges or any other additional fees [12]. While it is appreciated that the CMA has surveyed businesses and incorporated feedback, there is still uncertainty about the exact methods traders are expected to comply with [13]. This illustrates the struggle of balancing the flexibility of statutory acts and ensuring that they are capable of adapting to evolving commercial practices, and the need for predictability in laws. While detailed guidance provided by the CMA reduces uncertainty to some extent [14], reliance on legislative interpretation rather than settled judicial precedents is likely to have businesses navigating compliance through enforcement trends rather than clearly defined legal rules.

Conclusion

The DMCC Act 2024 represents a pivotal development in UK consumer protection law. The CMA’s active enforcement of transparency in online pricing demonstrates how UK laws aim to protect consumer rights further. While challenges around legal certainty and compliance remain, the UK’s new enforcement regime lays a foundation for greater clarity in online transactions, stronger consumer confidence, and a fairer competitive environment. If the CMA continues to act consistently and transparently, the reforms introduced by the DMCC Act could starkly improve pricing practices in the digital marketplace.

References

[1] Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

[2] Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008.

[3] Public Accounts Committee, ‘MPs report on the system for enforcing consumer law’ (UK Parliament, 9 Nov 2011) < https://committees.parliament.uk/committee/127/public-accounts-committee/news/177958/mps-report-on-the-system-for-enforcing-consumer-law/>  accessed 6 Feb 2026.

[4]   Ibid.

[5] DMCC Act 2024, s 230.

[6]  DMCC Act 2024, s 31, s 85.

[7]  Competition and Markets Authority, ‘CMA launches major consumer protection drive focused on online pricing practices’ (GOV.UK, 18 November 2025) < https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-major-consumer-protection-drive-focused-on-online-pricing-practices> accessed 6 Feb 2026.

[8]   Jen Dinmore, Geraint Lloyd-Taylor, ‘Drip pricing – CMA launches much anticipated additional consultation’ (Lewis Silkin, 3 July 2025) < https://www.lewissilkin.com/insights/2025/07/03/drip-pricing-cma-launches-much-anticipated-additional-consultation-102kr0q> accessed 6 Feb 2026.

[9]   CMA (n 7).

[10] Emma Cochrane, ‘Price transparency is important, it affects everyone’ (GOV.UK, 3 July 2025) < https://competitionandmarkets.blog.gov.uk/2025/07/03/price-transparency-is-important-it-affects-everyone/> accessed 6 Feb 2026.

[11]  Ibid.

[12]  Tim Sales, Melanie Shefford, ‘Price transparency guidance lands as CMA launches first consumer law investigations using its new DMCC Act powers’ (CMS Law-Now, 5 Dec 2025) < https://cms-lawnow.com/en/ealerts/2025/12/price-transparency-guidance-lands-as-cma-launches-first-consumer-law-investigations-using-its-new-dmcc-act-powers> accessed 6 Feb 2026.

[13] ibid.

[14]   Competition and Markets Authority, ‘Digital markets competition regime guidance’ (CMA194, 19 Dec 2024) < https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6762f4f6cdb5e64b69e307de/Digital_Markets_Competition_Regime_Guidance.pdf> accessed 6 Feb 2026.

 Image Credits

David Vincent on Unsplash <https://unsplash.com/photos/low-angle-photography-of-high-rise-buildings-ehNnrwro1qI>

A “War” on Drugs: Examining the Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello Justifications for US Strikes on Drug Boats in the Caribbean and Pacific

A “War” on Drugs: Examining the Jus ad Bellum and Jus in Bello Justifications for US Strikes on Drug Boats in the Caribbean and Pacific

Ukraine’s Investor-State Arbitration and Recent ICSID Cases

Ukraine’s Investor-State Arbitration and Recent ICSID Cases