Competition | UK Regulatory Outlook March 2026

Universities and research institutions collaboration 

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has issued new guidance clarifying how higher education (HE) providers can work together without breaching competition law, as institutions increasingly look to pool resources in a challenging financial environment. Competition law applies to all HE providers (including universities and research institutions) that charge fees or carry out economic activities, even on a not-for-profit basis. 

What counts as low risk 

Most forms of collaboration are unlikely to attract regulatory scrutiny. Shared infrastructure, joint procurement, policy discussions with government or regulators, and research partnerships with non-competitors (such as businesses or non-university research institutes) all pose a low competition risk. Arrangements to help students or staff move between institutions, for example when a course closes, are also unlikely to raise concerns. 

Where institutions should exercise caution 

Information sharing and course collaborations carry greater risk. Institutions must not exchange competitively sensitive information (CSI), such as confidential pricing or admissions strategies, with rival providers.  

Where benchmarking data is involved, engaging an independent third party can help ensure CSI does not pass between competitors. Course collaboration may also be problematic if it reduces the choices available to students, particularly where few similar courses exist or students are unlikely to travel. 

While this guidance largely restates existing competition law through a higher education lens, it signals a concerted CMA effort to remove perceived barriers to collaboration and is consistent with the government's broader growth agenda. The CMA has previously indicated it would "not prioritise" investigating certain collaborations, such as those relating to cancer therapies, and there may in time be similar safe harbours identified for key university and research sectors. This would offer institutions much-needed certainty as they navigate an increasingly complex financial landscape. For a more in-depth analysis of these developments, see this Insight. 

Algorithms and competition law 

In a blog published on 4 March 2026, the CMA set out its current thinking on competition law risks arising from algorithmic pricing and signalled a significant step-up in enforcement capabilities. It identifies four categories of algorithmic collusion risk: 

• Classic collusion implemented via algorithm: Rivals explicitly agree to collude and use algorithms to implement, monitor and enforce the agreement. The CMA has already pursued enforcement action on this basis.
• Hub-and-spoke arrangements: Competitors use the same algorithm or data hub to exchange competitively sensitive information indirectly, even unintentionally, including by delegating pricing decisions or receiving recommendations based on co-mingled data.
• Predictable agent behaviour: Algorithms that react to market events, follow price leadership and punish deviations, producing collusive outcomes without explicit agreement.
• Autonomous AI coordination: Advanced AI systems tasked with profit maximisation may learn to reach coordinated outcomes without human intent to collude. 

The CMA is also analysing the implications of agentic AI – please see the consumer law section for more information. 

Private dental services market study 

The CMA has launched a market study into the supply of private dental services in the United Kingdom, examining whether the private dentistry market is working well for consumers (including preventative, clinically necessary and cosmetic dental treatments). The study follows a request from the chancellor, who noted that the government would welcome any recommendations to ensure the market works well for consumers. 

Why this matters 

The combined publicly funded and private dentistry market in the UK is reported to be valued at over £12 billion, of which over £8 billion (two thirds) is accounted for by the private dentistry market, with a significant and growing proportion of households using private dental services, partly driven by people being unable to access NHS treatment or unable to access it quickly enough. Commentators have drawn attention to rising, and in many cases unaffordable, costs, with reports of some people resorting to DIY dentistry. These challenges are likely to be compounded by broader cost of living pressures. 

Key areas under scrutiny 

The CMA has identified several focal points for the study. These include the consumer journey and choice: specifically, how consumers access information to make informed decisions, and the availability of, and ease of switching between, private dental services.  

It will also examine whether dentists engage in any unfair or anticompetitive practices that may adversely affect consumers or competition. Concerns already noted include dental practices conditioning children's NHS access on a parent becoming a private patient, and concerns around upselling. On market outcomes, the CMA will consider how prices have changed relative to inflation and assess the relative profitability of service providers and the different treatments they offer. 

Timeline and next steps 

The study is expected to run for a full 12 months: evidence gathering is expected to conclude by late August 2026, an interim update with emerging concerns and potential options is anticipated between October and November 2026, and a final report is due by 4 March 2027. 

Potential implications 

Possible outcomes range from a finding of no material concerns to recommendations to business or government, enforcement action, or a market investigation reference. These could include recommendations for reform of existing conduct regulation to improve transparency and empower consumers, or direct enforcement action where suspected breaches of consumer or competition law are identified.  

Dental practices, insurers, and corporate dental groups should monitor the study closely, as its findings may prompt significant regulatory or operational change across the sector. 

Government publishes consultation response on sensitive sectors under NSIA 

The government has published its response to the consultation on proposed updates to the National Security and Investment Act (NSIA), the Notifiable Acquisition Regulations (NARs), confirming a package of amendments intended to sharpen the regime's focus on genuine national security risks while reducing the regulatory burden on lower-risk transactions. 

The NARs came into force in January 2022 and have not been updated since. Building on stakeholder feedback to the previous government's Call for Evidence on the NSIA, this government published a statutory report on the NARs in December 2024, which found that the NARs were generally operating effectively but recognised that there was room for improvement. The government then launched a 12-week consultation proposing updates to the NARs on 22 July 2025, closing on 14 October 2025. 

Key decisions 

Following the consultation, the government has confirmed it will: 

• Make further changes to the Critical Minerals, Semiconductors, Artificial Intelligence and Communications schedules to reduce capturing low-risk notifications.
• Make clarifying amendments to the scope and definitions of the Critical Suppliers to government, Data Infrastructure, Energy, and Suppliers to the Emergency Services schedules.
• Create a new schedule to cover acquisitions in the Water sector.
• Maintain the updated Advanced Materials and Synthetic Biology schedules as they are, to include emerging technologies and their diverse uses.
• Provide updated, more detailed guidance across the NARs to address topics frequently raised in feedback. 

Timing 

Implementing the changes will require secondary legislation, which the government will bring to Parliament in due course, and will also likely require updated guidance. 

The statutory instrument will also be accompanied by the publication of an updated impact assessment, which will draw on evidence from the responses to the consultation. Businesses should begin reviewing their portfolios and activities now in anticipation of these changes taking effect later in 2026.  

What this means for businesses 

The reforms are designed to make the self-assessment process clearer. Businesses involved in AI, for instance, should benefit from a narrowed scope that excludes the use of non-consumer AI systems for routine business activities, the use of licensed third-party AI systems, and certain modifications made to AI systems as part of routine business deployment activities and IT policies.  

Similarly, in the communications sector, amendments address concerns around inadvertent capture of lower-risk entities. The addition of a standalone Water schedule confirms a longstanding expectation. However, these changes are unlikely materially to reduce the number of NSIA mandatory filings required; in fact, the changes could lead to a modest increase in the total number of deals that need to be notified, especially in AI. 

UK/EU competition agreement 

On 25 February, the United Kingdom and the European Union signed the UK-EU Competition Cooperation Agreement. It is a supplementing agreement to the Trade and Cooperation Agreement (TCA), and provides a formal framework for cooperation and coordination in competition matters between the competition authorities of the EU and its Member States, on the one hand, and the UK's CMA, on the other. The full agreement has not yet been published and analysis of its key provisions is based on the draft text published by the European Commission, which is expected to be identical in all material respects. 

It covers several key areas. It establishes notification obligations where enforcement activities are likely to affect the important interests of the other party, and provides for coordination of parallel or related enforcement activities. Negative comity provisions require competition authorities to give careful consideration to each other's important interests throughout enforcement proceedings. Significantly, the agreement empowers the European Commission and national competition authorities of EU Member States, when applying EU competition law, to share information with, and receive information from, the CMA, and to use such information in evidence. 

Information sharing is subject to safeguards: shared information may only be used for competition law enforcement purposes and, where used in evidence, must relate to the subject matter for which it was initially obtained. Strict confidentiality obligations and restrictions on onward disclosure to third-country authorities apply. 

The agreement builds on existing bilateral competition cooperation agreements the EU has concluded with the US, Canada, Japan and South Korea, and reflects the continued importance of structured cross-border enforcement cooperation post-Brexit.  

A joint review of the agreement's implementation is envisaged within two years of entry into force. The agreement requires approval by both parties and will enter into force on the first day of the second month following the final notification of completion of internal procedures. Businesses operating across both jurisdictions should note that it may facilitate more coordinated and effective cross-border enforcement, particularly in cases involving parallel investigations or information requests from both the CMA and EU competition authorities.