competition law

Subscribe to competition law via RSS
Directly below view of London city skyscrapers at dusk

The consultation aims to make jurisdictional thresholds more predictable, enhance the CMA’s political accountability, and improve interactions between businesses and the regulator.

By Stephanie Adams, Greg Bonné, Ludmilla Le Grand, David Little, Jonathan Parker, and Simon Pritchard

On 20 January 2026, the UK government launched a consultation on a package of reforms to the UK competition regime — aimed at supporting economic growth while delivering benefits for consumers and businesses and maintaining the independence of…

The proposals include certain notable changes, while also mirroring the current UK framework and the European Commission’s planned approach in many respects.

By David Little, Alexandra Luchian, and James Mathieson

The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has proposed replacing the retained Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Regulation (Retained VABER), which has applied in the UK following the country’s departure from the EU and will expire on 31 May 2022, with a UK Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order (UK VABEO). The CMA’s proposals include a number of changes intended to reflect evolving market conditions and enforcement practice, and to widen the CMA’s existing powers.

Concurrently, the European Commission is consulting on the draft revised Vertical Block Exemption Regulation (VBER) and Vertical Guidelines, planned to enter into force in the EU at the same time as UK VABEO.

This blog post provides an overview of the key similarities and differences between (i) Retained VABER and the proposed UK VABEO, and (ii) the proposed UK VABEO and the draft EU VBER.

The judgment has important implications for the competition law compliance responsibilities of company directors.

John Colahan and Peter Citron

On 3 July 2020, the High Court disqualified[1] Michael Martin from acting as a director for seven years. The court found that Mr Martin had contributed to a breach of competition law by his former company, which owned and ran an estate agency (Berryman’s) in Burnham-on-Sea. This finding was made despite the fact that Mr Martin was not concerned with day-to-day sales, had not attended any of the meetings with the other estate agents where the competition law infringement had taken place, and had taken some steps following the inspection of the company by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) including the obtaining of legal advice that led to compliance actions.

The investigation is being carried out under the CMA’s competition law powers rather than under its consumer protection functions.

By John D. Colahan and Anuj Ghai

On 18 June, the CMA released an update noting that it had launched an investigation under Chapter II of the Competition Act 1998 into suspected breaches of competition law by four pharmacies and convenience stores. In particular, the investigations relate to suspected charging of excessive and unfair prices for hand sanitiser products during the COVID-19 pandemic.

As noted in a prior blog post, the CMA believed that there was a significant risk that prices would rise above justifiable levels in a number of sectors because of the COVID-19 outbreak, coupled with the restrictions on businesses and people. As of 17 May, the CMA had written to more than 200 traders about this issue. In its communication, the CMA asked for more information or expressed concern about what the CMA considered may be unjustifiable price increases.

By Jonathan Parker and Anuj Ghai

Summary

The Competition & Markets Authority (CMA) has imposed a £20,000 fixed penalty on Hungryhouse Holdings Limited (Hungryhouse). The CMA imposed the penalty under Section 110 of the Enterprise Act 2002 (EA02) for failure to comply, without reasonable excuse, with a requirement the CMA issued in a notice pursuant to section 109 EA02 dated 31 May 2017 (the First s.109 Notice). The CMA imposed the penalty on Hungryhouse on 22 November 2017, following the CMA’s unconditional clearance of its acquisition of Just Eat plc (Just Eat) on 16 November 2017 (the Transaction). This is the first time that the CMA has imposed a fine on a merging party for failure to comply with an information request.

Factual Background

As part of its inquiry into the Transaction, the CMA issued Section 109 notices to the parties requiring them to produce specified documents and supply specified information to the CMA. On 26 May 2017, the CMA provided Hungryhouse with a draft of the First s109 Notice. The CMA offered Hungryhouse the opportunity to raise any questions relating to the content of the draft, including the availability of the documents, information, or data requested. On 30 May 2017, Hungryhouse responded to the CMA, noting that some of the questions would be difficult to respond to in full within the relevant timeframe, as responses to particular questions would involve access to senior management emails. However, Hungryhouse added that that they would “endeavour to provide all information by the stated deadlines”.

By Jonathan Parker and Calum Warren

On 2 August 2017, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched a consultation on proposals to amend the Office of Fair Trading’s 2012 guidance as to the appropriate amount of a penalty for infringements of the prohibitions against anti-competitive agreements and an abuse of a dominant position contained in the Competition Act 1998 (the Current Penalties Guidance). The consultation proposes the following four main changes to the Current Penalties Guidance, most of which are clarifications to the CMA’s current policy based on its existing decisional practice. The CMA has not proposed any amendments in relation to the adjustment for duration (step 2) or the adjustment to prevent the maximum penalty being exceeded and to avoid double jeopardy (step 5).

1. The starting point for calculating fines (step 1). The Current Penalties Guidance provides that the starting point for a fine may be up to 30% of an undertaking’s turnover in the relevant product and geographic market in the last business year. Whilst the CMA does not consider detailing a starting point for every type of infringement appropriate, and confirms that there is no pre-set “tariff” for different infringements, the CMA proposes to amend the Current Penalties Guidance to state that it will generally use a starting point of:

(i) Between 21-30% for the most serious types of infringement (i.e., those which the CMA considers to be so-called “object” infringements, such as cartel offences, as well as excessive and predatory pricing)

(ii) Between 10-20% for certain less serious object infringements and for infringements by “effect” (i.e., those for which the CMA must carry out an assessment to establish that the behaviour in question has had an anti-competitive effect on the market)

(iii) Less than 10% may be applied if the assessment of the specific circumstances of the case leads to a downwards adjustment. If more than one undertaking has taken part in an infringement, the CMA proposes clarifying that it will expect to apply the same starting point for each undertaking.