Competition | UK Regulatory Outlook June 2026

Civil engineering 

Following nearly a year of investigation into the road and rail civil engineering sector, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has released its Civil Engineering Market Study report. Its key finding is that the root causes of elevated costs, frequent project overruns and sluggish innovation lie with the way government structures its planning, funding and procurement, rather than with the industry itself. To address this, the report puts forward 19 recommendations, of which seven are considered critical, spanning four priority areas: embedding strategic oversight at HM Treasury level, securing more stable and extended funding commitments, mandating procurement best practice and cutting through regulatory complexity across road and rail. It is now on the government to set out its response by late August 2026. For a full analysis of the implications for contractors, suppliers and procuring authorities, read our Insight.

Live music industry – calling for a CMA market investigation 

The Commons Business and Trade Committee has published a report recommending that the CMA launch a full market investigation into the live music industry before the end of 2026. 

The inquiry was initially triggered by the 2024 Oasis ticket controversy, which prompted a CMA investigation finding that Ticketmaster had misled consumers and used unclear ticketing practices. Subsequent evidence sessions with Ticketmaster and its parent company Live Nation in February and June 2025 deepened the committee's concerns about competition in the sector. A subsequent call for written evidence received 45 submissions, a significant proportion anonymously, with contributors citing fear of reprisal from Live Nation. 

The committee concluded that Live Nation meets all three of the CMA's factors for determining market dominance. Key concerns include: 

• Live Nation directly controlled 58% of the 23.1 million primary tickets on sale in 2025 (rising to 66% including affiliates). 
• Long-term exclusivity arrangements tie venue access to festival participation, squeezing out independent promoters. 
• Ticketmaster's infrastructure requires third-party agents to integrate their systems with its own, enabling Live Nation to harvest competitor customer data. 
• Cross-subsidisation from high-margin ticketing allows Live Nation to offer artist contracts smaller competitors cannot match. 
• Only 30% of 2026 arena and stadium tickets have supported the grassroots levy, widely attributed to Live Nation's non-participation. 

The findings are reinforced by international action; in April 2026, a US federal jury found Live Nation had illegally maintained a monopoly. 

The committee has also recommended that the CMA use its powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 to impose remedies if required. 

A full CMA market investigation could result in significant structural remedies, including the potential break-up of parts of the business or forced divestiture (as seen with the recent Getty Images/Shutterstock merger) of venues, festivals, or ticketing operations. 

The CMA could use its powers under the Act to impose binding orders on how Live Nation operates in the UK. 

Live Nation would face intense regulatory scrutiny, likely requiring significant legal and compliance resource. 

CMA open consultation on merger efficiencies guidance 

On 3 June 2026, the CMA published a consultation on draft revised guidance on its approach to assessing rivalry-enhancing efficiencies in mergers (improvements that enable the merged entity to act as a stronger competitor to its rivals). The consultation, part of the CMA's broader 4Ps reform programme, is open until 1 July 2026. For more, read our detailed Insight. 

The CMA proposes to retain its current analytical framework, but provides additional clarity on its application. It confirms that efficiency claims are subject to the same evidentiary standards as its assessment of potential harms and encourages early engagement on efficiency claims rather than raising them after theories of harm have crystallised.  

The draft revised guidance provides additional clarity on the application of the criteria:  

• Timeliness: The CMA's approach will recognise that different efficiencies can arise over different timeframes and will apply appropriate discounting to expected future gains when comparing costs and benefits occurring over time. It will also consider the timeliness of expected efficiencies with the timing of harm arising from the merger. 
• Likelihood: The CMA will assess whether the merged entity has the ability and incentive to deliver the claimed efficiencies. Where efficiencies are credible but uncertain in timing or delivery, remedies may be used to secure them. 
• Sufficiency: The CMA will consider the overall competitive impact across both price and non-price factors. It will consider how harm and efficiencies vary over different timeframes, including situations where short‑term harm precedes longer‑term benefits, and whether time‑limited substantial lessening of competition (SLCs) can be addressed with proportionate remedies. 
• Merger specificity: The CMA will assess whether efficiencies could realistically be achieved by other means, considering the feasibility, costs, risks and barriers of alternatives and whether it would be commercially rational to pursue them. 

Commission opens consultation on territorial supply constraints 

On 28 May, the European Commission launched a public consultation on its planned action to address territorial supply constraints (TSCs). TSCs are a subset of practices used by manufacturers and suppliers of goods to organise the way in which their resellers engage with customers in order to optimise sales efforts. This can be achieved by suppliers determining either the territories or customer groups that resellers can actively pursue, or the conditions they must meet in order to become an authorised reseller. TSCs refer to the limitations aimed at enforcing the first category of objectives, and can range from active sales bans to certain types of territorial product differentiation. 

The Commission's view is that "TSCs in retail and wholesale fragment the Single Market, limit consumer choice and contribute to significant price differences across the EU". Manufacturers argue that additional regulation is unjustified, and note both that existing enforcement of competition rules on a case-by-case basis is adequate to address any unjustified uses of TSCs, and that price differences between EU member states can account for legitimate local differences such as consumer preferences, competitive conditions and regulatory requirements.  

TSCs have long been on the Commission's agenda. In recent years, in parallel to the rising cost of living crisis, the Commission's focus has shifted from pharmaceuticals, a sector with a long history of enforcement on this topic, to fast-moving consumer goods. The latest probes carried out in this area resulted in significant fines imposed on Mondelez in 2024 for hindering cross-border trade in chocolate, biscuits and coffee products; and on AB InBev in 2019 for restricting cross-border sales of beer.  

The Commission's ongoing public consultation invites retailers, wholesalers, manufacturers, public authorities, consumers, civil society organisations and academia to share their views, evidence and experiences of TSCs via the Have Your Say portal until 20 August. 

Proposed solutions 

In its 2025 Single Market Strategy, the Commission identified TSCs as one of the "Terrible 10", that is, the 10 most harmful barriers to the Internal Market. It identified that many TSCs can have potentially negative effects on the market yet still fall outside the scope of application of competition law, namely those resulting from practices of large manufacturers that are not considered to be in a dominant position. It is considering the following options to address this gap:  

• Option 1: Self-regulatory action (for example, a code of conduct). Stakeholders identify practices that hamper the sourcing of products across the EU and those that may be justified.  
• Option 2: Guidelines for national authorities and market operators. The European Commission identifies practices that hamper the sourcing of products from across the EU and those that may be justified.  
• Option 3: Legislation based on the concept of economic dependence that would cover TSCs resulting from unilateral decisions by non-dominant operators. 
• Option 4: Legislation identifying prohibited practices and those that may be justified.  

Impact on businesses 

Adoption is planned for the last quarter of 2026, and the impact on businesses will depend on the Commission's chosen option. Retailers will benefit from a strengthened legal right to buy and resell across EU Member States. It is unclear what it will mean for national and regional price differentials, as price harmonisation is not currently tabled for discussion. For manufactures, Options 3 and 4 would see those classed as non-dominant come under regulatory scrutiny on unilateral practices.  

In the meantime, manufacturers should begin mapping distribution strategies against any practices the Commission has highlighted as problematic. If you would like to discuss this or require support submitting a response to the public consultation by 20 August, please get in touch with the experts below.