21 October 2026
As we have discussed in our prior briefings, the CMA’s consumer team has been working hard to clamp down on business conduct that misleads consumers. In a flurry of activity on 14 October 2026, the CMA announced its resolution of another three of its live investigations. It has now been 18 months since the regime was first launched, and the CMA considers that the regime is now firmly in “delivery phase”.
Signed, sealed, delivered
On 14 October, the CMA announced that it has entered settlement agreements with Wayfair, Appliances Direct and Gold’s Gym, securing customer refunds to the total value of £440,000 and £6 million in financial penalties. In particular:
- Following its other drip pricing work, including in relation to AA and BSM, the CMA concluded that Gold’s Gym failed to notify customers clearly and upfront of a mandatory joining fee that applied to certain annual and direct debit memberships. Gold’s Gym has been fined £45,000 and ordered to issue customer refunds to the value of £9,000 to affected customers.
- Wayfair was fined £4.8 million for using false “urgency messaging”, such as misleading countdown timers and phrases like “Here Today Gone Tomorrow”. Wayfair’s messages implied that customers needed to act swiftly to secure time-limited deals, where the reality was that the prices it advertised were often available beyond the time frame specified at the same or a lower price. Wayfair’s fine is the single largest individual fine issued by the CMA under the new regime to date.
- Appliances Direct was fined £1.2 million for using (i) false or misleading “urgency messaging” in the form of pop-up countdown banners; and (ii) automatic opt-ins to additional, optional services (such as recycling and installation services). It was also ordered to pay refunds to the value of £432,000 to affected customers.
Delivering the goods
The CMA’s enforcement actions to date deliver some interesting takeaways regarding the new regime.
First, the CMA has deployed its new enforcement powers to resolve 7 of its live investigations (AA, BSM, StubHub, Marks Electrical, and the three cases mentioned above), delivering a total of almost £12 million in fines, and securing an additional £2.4 million in customer refunds. A mere 18 months into the regime, that’s an average delivery of around £800 000 per month since April 2025.
Second, in all seven resolved cases the businesses in question admitted to breaking the law, and agreed to settle the case early. By doing so, each business was able to secure a significant (40%) discount to the final fine imposed. Early and collaborative engagement culminating in a settlement certainly generates some degree of resource and timing efficiencies for the CMA and the businesses involved. It also means that customers can theoretically access refunds promptly. It will be interesting to see how the process differs where settlement is not the resolution route.
Third, four of the seven cases resolved thus far relate to the practice of drip pricing – an automatically banned practice under section 230 of the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act. There are at least another four live investigations (Ryanair, Virgin Atlantic, Red Driving School and Trainline) that involve an allegation of drip pricing. Accounting for around 40% of the cases initiated under the new regime, it is clear that the practice of drip pricing remains a key priority for the CMA. To date, however, the CMA has focused on drip pricing conduct that relates to mandatory booking, joining or service fees. It has not tackled the issue of mandatory delivery fees in any great detail – at least not yet.
Delivery charges in the Delivery Phase?
During 2025, many online retailers sought to distinguish the concept of mandatory delivery fees from mandatory booking, service or joining fees, to exclude the former from the automatically prohibited practice of drip pricing. One argument in support of differentiation is that a precise delivery fee is not always calculable upfront. Often, the speed and cost of delivery is dependent on the type and number of products purchased and the customer’s location – which are only known to a retailer at checkout.
The CMA’s Unfair Commercial Practices: Pricing Transparency guidance (the Guidance) published in November 2025, however, explicitly confirms that mandatory delivery charges – like mandatory service charges, booking fees or membership fees – must be included upfront in an invitation to purchase. A failure to do so is a form of drip pricing.
Retailers can perhaps anticipate some additional insights on the CMA’s likely approach to delivery fees over the coming months: the CMA has confirmed that it is currently “reviewing how online retailers disclose delivery fees and expects to provide an update shortly”. This is definitely one for e-retailers to keep an eye on.
Future deliverables?
The CMA has plans to deliver additional results to champion consumers over the coming months.
The CMA’s continued focus on pricing does not stop at drip pricing. Even as we await the consultation on fake prices promised as part of the PM’s “everyday fixes”, the CMA has indicated that it is on the look-out for businesses who might be using misleading discounts. Both the regulatory and political expectation is that discounts must be genuine, and cannot be phoney or misleading in substance or form. The imminent “Golden Quarter” should provide ample opportunity for the CMA to scrutinise the legitimacy of advertised bargains.
In addition, the CMA will also be gearing up to commence work on misleading or unclear subscription contracts, ahead of the January 2027 go-live date for the new regime. As has been its approach historically, the CMA has confirmed that it will look to support businesses in their compliance efforts during the early months of the regime. However, this support should not be confused with early leniency – the CMA has promised to deploy its powers immediately to tackle egregious behaviour, focusing on conduct which is already prohibited under existing law.
Finally, the CMA continues to progress its five live investigations into fake reviews, and will issue an update on its work in the coming months. By now, the CMA expects that businesses have implemented effective systems that host genuine reviews, and prevent misleading content, and have in place robust internal processes that enable them to respond swiftly to address problematic content.
The CMA’s direction of travel is clear: it is not just promising to champion consumers – it intends to deliver. Now is the time for businesses to ensure that their compliance efforts deliver too.
Amy McMeekin
Euclid Law
