Consumer law | UK Regulatory Outlook September 2026

DMCCA subscriptions contract regime accelerated to January 2027

The new UK prime minister, Andy Burnham, has announced that the government will bring forward implementation of the new subscriptions contract regime under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) to come into effect in January 2027, "in time for when customers often start new subscriptions for the year ahead". The government, under Sir Keir Starmer's leadership, had planned for the regime to come into force in spring 2027, delayed from the original date of autumn 2026.

In April 2026, the Starmer government published its response to its consultation on implementing the regime, providing further detail on some aspects of the new regime, but leaving various questions unanswered. Read more about the government's response in this Insight.

In any event, the regime will require secondary legislation to bring it into force. The government also planned to publish guidance to support business implementation of the new regime. Both these documents are expected to provide further details.

Government to publish consultation on tackling misleading 'discount' prices

The prime minister has also announced that the government wants to tackle "pretend prices and deceptive deals", whereby traders artificially inflate prices to make any "discounts" offered appear larger than they really are.

The government plans to launch a consultation in autumn 2026 to assess whether false "was" prices, invented discounts and misleading recommended retail prices should be added to the list of prohibited practices in Schedule 20 of the DMCCA. This would make these practices automatically unfair in all circumstances, without reference to the effect on consumer transactional decisions. 

CMA launches three new investigations over concerns relating to drip pricing

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched three new consumer protection investigations into businesses over concerns relating to drip pricing, a practice banned under the DMCCA.

In particular, it is concerned about the following practices:

• Trainline is being investigated over whether all mandatory fees have been included in the upfront prices displayed to consumers buying train and coach tickets in advance on the Trainline app and website.
• is being investigated over whether mandatory resort fees and local taxes have been included in the total price displayed to consumers at the beginning of the purchasing process and whether consumers are provided with a total price when purchasing a package holiday.
• RED Driving School is being investigated over whether a mandatory booking fee and a "digital" fee have been included in the total upfront price displayed to consumers when booking driving lessons.

These firms were sent "advisory letters", announced by the CMA in November 2025, as part of its first consumer protection drive using its new enforcement powers under the DMCCA. However, the CMA remains concerned about their pricing practices following ongoing monitoring.

High Court refuses CMA's 'fixed volume requirement' for Emma Sleep's reference pricing

The High Court has refused the CMA's application for an enforcement order that would have required Emma Matratzen GmbH to adhere to a 1:2 "fixed volume requirement" (FVR) in relation to its use of reference pricing.

The CMA opened an investigation into Emma's online sales practices in 2022. The parties subsequently worked together to address many of the CMA's concerns, resulting in a consent order in May 2026 after Emma admitted infringements of consumer law in relation to its use of "urgency messaging" (countdown timers, headline discount claims and high demand claims) and gave undertakings not to continue/repeat such conduct. See this Regulatory Outlook for more information.

The remaining concern centred on Emma's use of "reference pricing", or "was/now" pricing. Emma agreed to adhere to the "duration requirement", which precludes it from using a reference price unless the product has been offered for sale at that price for a particular length of time. However, the parties could not agree on the CMA's proposed 1:2 FVR, as set out in its guidance "Discount and reference pricing principles: selling mattresses online", which would require that for every two products sold at the discounted price, Emma must have sold one at the higher reference price.

The proceedings fell to be determined under the "old law", the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, now repealed and reinstated by the DMCCA, as they were issued before the relevant DMCCA regimes became effective.

The CMA argued that if substantially all sales are made at the discounted price, it is misleading to suggest consumers are getting a good deal, since the discounted price is in effect the usual price. The court held that:

• In deciding whether a reference price is "genuine" or "realistic", an average consumer would pay some regard to the number of sales made at that price.
• However, an average consumer would also consider whether Emma had a genuine belief that it could make significant sales at the reference price since Emma can be expected to know the market in which it operates.
• Accordingly, even if sales at a reference price did not satisfy the 1:2 FVR, an average consumer might still regard the reference price as genuine if Emma held a real belief it could sell significant quantities at that price.
• The CMA's argument that use of a reference price is necessarily misleading if almost all sales are made at the discounted price was accordingly flawed.

By way of illustration, the court posited a scenario in which Emma offered a mattress at £1,000, genuinely believing this to be a realistic price, but made no sales at that price due to a competitor offering a comparable mattress for £800. If Emma then discounted to £750, the court considered that purchasers on the first day of the promotion would not necessarily regard the £1,000 reference price as unrealistic, even absent any sales at that price. However, the longer the mattress continued to be advertised at the discounted price, the less realistic the reference price would become.

The court held that the CMA had not established that Emma lacked a genuine belief that its reference prices were realistic and achievable. While it concluded that Emma had committed some infringements and the pre-conditions for making an enforcement order were present, it declined to make one in the form requested.

The court directed that the parties should liaise with a view to agreeing on the terms of an enforcement order consistent with the court's conclusions. Following the judgment, the CMA has temporarily withdrawn its guidance.