Competition | UK Regulatory Outlook October 2026

EU-UK Competition Cooperation Agreement 

On 19 October 2026, the EU published the EU-UK Competition Cooperation Agreement. The agreement aims "to promote cooperation and coordination on competition matters". It is due to come into force on 1 December. 

The principal developments introduced by the agreement are the coordination of enforcement activities, a negative comity obligation, and a number of requirements relating to the sharing of information. 

The competition authorities may agree to coordinate enforcement where they pursue the same or related goals. This is already happening in several cases, a key example being the investigation into fragrances, where the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched an investigation in consultation with the European Commission as well as other competition authorities in the US and Switzerland. However, this legal backing may pave the way for further coordination.

The negative comity obligation requires the authorities to give "careful consideration to each other's important interests" during all phases of competition enforcement. Although "important interests" is not defined, the requirement is likely to foster the exchange of information. This has the potential to be especially important at a time when the CMA has been instructed to focus its enforcement activity on issues directly affecting UK consumers.

Information sharing is permitted only where lawful under applicable domestic law, including confidentiality and data protection requirements. Authorities are not obliged to share information. Where necessary, they must consider seeking providers’ written consent on request meaning that, in practice, waivers will often remain necessary. This supports cooperation while preserving domestic restrictions, and does not establish unrestricted access to evidence. Safeguards restrict use generally to competition enforcement and evidential use to the subject-matter for which information was originally obtained. Specific protections govern sanctions against individuals. Onward disclosure is controlled, non-public information must remain confidential, and accidental misuse or disclosure triggers notification and consultation on mitigating harm.

This publication comes ahead of the UK-EU summit in Brussels on 20 November. This may indicate that further cooperation in other regards is on the horizon. Businesses should keep their eye on the developing regulatory landscape that emerges from these talks. 

Recovering competition damages from directors in the EU 

On 1 October 2026, Advocate General Szpunar handed down an opinion stating that a company cannot sue its officers to recover a competition law fine. The case concerns corporate accountability and the boundary between public enforcement and private claims against management. 

Following a cartel investigation in the stainless steel industry, Germany’s Federal Cartel Office fined Zapp Precision Metals €4.1 million and its former managing director, KU, €126,000. The company sought reimbursement of its fine from KU.

Although the referring court considered the payment compensable damage under German company law, it questioned whether recovery would undermine the objectives of competition penalties. Previously this has been a matter to be decided under national law. Several jurisdictions have allowed such claims, while others have rejected the possibility of companies recovering fine payments from the individuals who directly engaged in the anticompetitive conduct. 

Szpunar’s opinion centres on the undertaking as the perpetrator of the infringement. Its liability is personal: individuals acting for it form part of its economic unit. Fines are calibrated to the undertaking’s circumstances and must remain effective, proportionate and dissuasive. Reimbursement, even partial, would dilute that deterrence and effectively alter the economic impact of the authority’s decision. The broader implication is that private enforcement cannot automatically be treated as reinforcing public enforcement. The opinion rejects the Commission’s suggestion that increased deterrence of managers could offset reduced deterrence of undertakings. Directors' and Officers' (D&O) insurance would not change the analysis; transferring the burden to an insurer would reinforce the same concern. 

Importantly, the proposed prohibition is confined to loss resulting exclusively from payment of the fine. Szpunar preserves separate personal fines and recourse against managers for compensation paid to injured parties. He does not resolve the claims for investigation and legal costs. If adopted by the court, the approach would prioritise corporate compliance incentives while leaving managerial accountability to distinct mechanisms. This is only an Advocate General’s opinion and so, while informative, it is not the court’s ruling. Businesses monitor whether the court follows the opinion on the recovery of competition law fines from a company's officers. 

Updated CMA guidance on whistleblowing and cartel reporting

On 2 October 2026, the CMA published updated whistleblowing guidance and a new webpage for cartel reporting. Crucially, this updated guidance provides new online routes for whistleblowers to make a report.

Whistleblowing is a key avenue through which the CMA is able to build evidence of competition and consumer law infringements and the updated guidance reflects its continued ambition to facilitate whistleblowing. The introduction of a dedicated online reporting tool for whistleblowers, alongside a specific webpage for cartel reporting, underscores the CMA's commitment to making these channels more accessible and effective. A significant proportion of the CMA's investigations into breaches start from whistleblowing in some form. Businesses should use the updates to the whistleblower reporting channels as a prompt to consider whether their competition and consumer law compliance strategy is robust, to prevent the risks of non-compliant behaviour arising. 

The updated guidance specifies that the CMA is the appropriate body to report any suspicions or knowledge of conduct which is believed to infringe competition or consumer protection law, provided that the whistleblower believes that their information is "substantially true" and that investigating the alleged infringement would be in the public interest. The CMA is a "prescribed person", meaning that an individual who reports concerns about their former or current place of work may have legal protection. An individual can first discuss any apprehensions with the CMA before making a full report. Reports may also be made anonymously, although this is likely to affect the CMA's ability to investigate thoroughly. 

The CMA can be contacted through the online whistleblower report, phone, or email. There is also a new specific webpage for reporting cartels, which includes situations where businesses agree not to compete, not to hire each other's employees, or to fix their prices. Reports should detail all known circumstances of the alleged wrongdoing including timeframe, duration, parties involved, what actions were committed and how the reporter has become aware of these circumstances, including any evidence by way of documentation, screenshots and correspondence. However, the reporter should by no means try to investigate further for the purposes of the report. 

Upon receipt of a report, the CMA will respond within five working days, assuming the report is not submitted anonymously. The report and evidence will be stored securely and the CMA will take steps to protect the whistleblower's identity. It will carefully review the evidence and conduct further research before deciding next steps based on its "prioritisation principles".

CMA issues first employee fines for concealing evidence in construction dawn raid 

The CMA has imposed penalties totalling £50,000 on construction firm M&J Group and two employees for concealing a work mobile phone and documents during a dawn raid. This marks the CMA’s first civil penalties against individuals for concealing evidence during an inspection. 

Although the penalties for M&J Group were imposed under the previous corporate penalty regime, businesses now face the risk of much larger fines following changes introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) from 1 January 2025. 

Concealment during the inspection 

M&J's estimating director instructed its office manager to remove a work mobile phone and documents from the premises during an investigation. The director also falsely told CMA officers that he did not have a work phone. 

The items were subsequently returned and handed over later that day. Despite this, the CMA found that M&J's attempted concealment risked the loss of evidence and wasted investigative time and resources.

It imposed the following penalties: 

• £25,000 on M&J Group;
• £20,000 on its estimating director; and
• £5,000 on its office manager.

The inspection formed part of an ongoing investigation into suspected bid-rigging by 12 construction companies. The CMA has publicly stated that the procedural fines are not indicative of the outcome of the wider investigation, which is still ongoing.

Enhanced powers and higher corporate penalties 

The DMCCA has strengthened the CMA’s investigative powers, including those concerning electronically stored information and interviews, and increased the potential corporate penalties for non-compliance. 

The M&J dawn raid took place before the enhanced corporate penalty regime under the DMCCA came into force. At that time, the maximum fixed penalty for a business was £30,000, and the maximum fixed individual penalty was (and remains) £30,000. Under the new regime, businesses can face a fixed penalty of up to 1% of turnover, daily penalties of up to 5% of daily turnover, or both.

Impact on businesses  

Future penalties for non-compliance could be considerably larger, particularly for businesses with high turnover. The office manager’s fine also signals the CMA’s willingness to pursue employees beyond senior management. 

It is another important reminder that clear dawn raid guidance and training should cover staff at all levels, making clear their obligations and personal exposure from the outset. In this case, following a senior colleague’s instructions did not excuse the breach.