Consumer law | UK Regulatory Outlook July 2025

UK updates

CMA consults on price transparency guidance under DMCCA 

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched a consultation on the price transparency provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). 

On 6 April 2025, the "unfair commercial practices" (UCP) regime of the DMCCA came into effect and the CMA published its final guidance on it. The guidance covers, among other things, the prohibition on omitting material information from an invitation to purchase, which includes omitting the total price and using "drip pricing" techniques. However, at the time, the CMA also said that it would be consulting further on guidance on the specific subject of drip pricing. See March and April editions of the Regulatory Outlook for more details on the CMA's approach. 

The CMA's new draft guidance on price transparency sets out: 

• The meaning of an "invitation to purchase" – this is essentially where a trader gives information to consumers about a product and its price, whether or not it includes an opportunity for the consumer to actually purchase the product. It can therefore include advertisements and promotions.
• What pricing information needs to be included in an invitation to purchase – traders must ensure that the prices in an invitation to purchase do not mislead consumers (examples of what would and would not be considered realistic, meaningful and attainable pricing are provided). "Drip pricing" is specifically addressed and a new concept of "partitioned pricing" (that is, the practice of providing the component parts of a price without giving the overall total) is introduced. Examples of prohibited practices are also provided.
• Total price requirements – the core principles that traders should follow when calculating and presenting the total price of their products in an invitation to purchase are explained, including when charges would be considered mandatory (and should therefore be included in the headline price), versus optional charges (including delivery charges). The circumstances in which a total price might not reasonably be calculated in advance due to the nature of the product, and what traders must do in that case, are also set out.
• Specific types of charges – case studies with illustrative examples are provided, explaining in more detail how pricing information for different types of charges (for example, delivery charges and booking fees) should be presented to ensure compliance. The use of "floating baskets" is also covered. 

The deadline for responses is 8 September 2025. 

CMA provides update on its dynamic pricing project and tips for businesses  

The CMA has published an update on its dynamic pricing project, launched after last year's issues with Ticketmaster's sale of Oasis reunion concert tickets. See this Regulatory Outlook for background and below for an update on the CMA's investigation into Ticketmaster. 

The CMA does not recommend a further change to consumer protection law. Instead, it believes that sector-specific interventions are likely to be the most effective and proportionate way to address potential issues. The update includes a reminder about the CMA's new powers under the DMCCA allowing it to determine when consumer law has been breached and directly impose fines. 

The CMA has identified key types of information that could be material for consumers (noting that the exact information a consumer will need will depend on the circumstances and the pricing model being used): 

• A statement that prices can change and are not fixed.
• An explanation of factors that cause price changes, such as prices increasing as the booking date approaches, to help consumers understand when they might secure the best deal.
• The range of prices (for example, minimum and maximum amounts), so that consumers can assess if waiting might make a purchase too expensive or if they should buy immediately. 

Not all this information will be necessary in every instance of dynamic pricing, and this list is not exhaustive. 

To support businesses, the CMA has also published tips for businesses using dynamic pricing, outlining how information should be presented throughout the consumer journey. The CMA's work on drip-pricing and the DMCCA remains ongoing (see above). 

CMA says it is preparing to litigate with Ticketmaster 

On 24 June 2025, the CMA appeared before the Business and Trade Parliamentary Committee as part of the committee's work on prices, competition and consumer protection. It subsequently provided a written submission to the committee on its work, which included a short update on the Ticketmaster case. 

Its investigation into Ticketmaster opened in September 2024 following the sale of Oasis concert tickets (see this Insight). From its investigations, the CMA identified the following concerns: 

• Seated tickets labelled as "platinum" were sold at two and a half times the price of standard tickets, but did not explain that they offered no additional benefits and were often in the same stadium area, potentially misleading consumers into thinking that "platinum" seats were superior.
• Consumers were not informed about two categories of standing tickets at different prices, with the cheaper tickets sold first and more expensive ones released later, resulting in unexpected higher costs for many fans who had been forced to wait in a lengthy queue. 

The CMA did not find evidence that Ticketmaster used an algorithmic pricing model to adjust ticket prices in real time. Due to the sale date, the CMA is using its powers under Part 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002, as the new enforcement regime under the DMCCA is not applicable. 

In March 2025, the CMA consulted with Ticketmaster to seek a voluntary resolution and provided draft undertakings that it would accept to address the concerns. Ticketmaster responded on 16 June 2025, but there was fundamental disagreement over whether Ticketmaster’s practices infringed consumer law. Ticketmaster declined to provide the undertakings sought or to suggest alternative undertakings. 

The CMA has now informed Ticketmaster that it has fulfilled its obligation to consult and is preparing to litigate if necessary. The CMA said that it will continue to engage with Ticketmaster to secure a voluntary resolution if Ticketmaster shows a clear and timely commitment to engage. 

Online prize draws and competitions market study assesses the need for government intervention 

To better understand the market for prize draws and competitions (PDCs), the Department for Culture, Media and Sport commissioned London Economics to conduct research. The research also looked at whether government intervention is needed and, if so, what form it should take. 

The study identified several areas for potential intervention: 

• Reducing the risk of gambling harm from PDCs – PDCs are not regulated by the Gambling Act 2005, so operators are not currently legally required to implement protection measures.
• Consumer harm – the consumer survey and stakeholder consultations identified a need for more fairness and transparency in PDCs. Many operators provide little information on how winners are chosen, and some change prizes retrospectively due to poor ticket sales. The evidence suggested that 8% of PDC players believed that operators did not accurately describe the prizes and conditions of their competitions.
• The impact of PDCs on charity donations from lotteries. Survey data showed that PDC operators donate around 10% of sales to charity, which is less than lotteries. If PDCs divert spending from lotteries, charitable donations could decrease. However, the study did not measure the extent of any such diversion. 

Suggested interventions include: 

• Bringing PDCs under the Gambling Commission's oversight, with specific rules and restrictions.
• Enforcing existing consumer protection rules more assertively, including "sector compliance" work by consumer protection bodies such as the Advertising Standards Agency (ASA) by monitoring and addressing advertising compliance concerns. The ASA has already made several rulings against PDC operators.
• A voluntary code of conduct for operators of PDCs setting out industry standards for measures used to protect players from harm. 

EU updates 

Parliament and Council agree on rules to modernise out-of-court dispute resolution for digital markets 

The European Parliament and Council of the EU have reached a deal on new rules modernising alternative dispute resolution (ADR) processes for the digital economy. The proposal was adopted by the Commission in 2023 (see this Regulatory Outlook). 

The new rules: 

• Clarify that the ADR framework will apply to consumer disputes from the advertising and information provision stage through to conclusion of the contract and beyond (for example, use of digital content by the consumer).
• Allow for third country traders to participate.
• Continue to allow traders to decide whether to participate in ADR, unless a specific EU law or national legislation obliges trader participation in out-of-court dispute resolution, but introduce a duty on traders to tell consumers within 20 working days (30 working days in complex cases) whether they intend to engage if a consumer requests ADR.
• Allow ADR providers to group together similar cases against the same trader if consumers consent.
• Oblige ADR providers to maintain websites setting out easily accessible information on their processes and allowing complaints to be submitted and tracked online. 

The Parliament and the Council have concluded an "early second reading agreement". The Council is expected to adopt this agreement formally, after which Parliament will vote to endorse it in plenary, at second reading. 

European Commission consults on Digital Fairness Act  

The much-anticipated consultation and call for evidence by the European Commission on a potential Digital Fairness Act (DFA) to improve consumer protection in the digital sphere is finally here (see this Regulatory Outlook).

Although there is no legislative proposal yet for the DFA, the idea for which was born out of the Commission's "fitness check" of consumer law (see our Insight), we know that the DFA will focus on closing gaps in consumer protection laws to ensure protection against (among other things) dark patterns, addictive design, drip pricing, subscription contracts and personalisation. The consultation and call for evidence seek feedback from businesses, organisations, consumers and other stakeholders on all these points. 

The Commission has also said that simplification of existing consumer protection laws is on the agenda as well (European Commissioner McGrath hosted an Implementation Dialogue on this very subject on 16 July 2025, views and ideas from which will, it was said, feed into the DFA). 

The consultation and call for evidence are open until 9 October 2025. The Commission expects to adopt the legislative proposal in the third quarter of 2026.