CMA announces three more consumer protection settlements – forecasts its enforcement priorities moving forward

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced today that it has agreed to settle three of its ongoing consumer protection investigations, and in a new blog post, plotted its enforcement path forward. 

Of the eight initial consumer protection investigations the CMA opened, seven have now settled. 

In November 2025, the CMA launched its consumer protection enforcement programme under its new DMCCA powers by opening investigations into eight businesses, focusing on online pricing practices: StubHub, viagogo, AA Driving School, BSM Driving School, Gold's Gym, Wayfair, Appliances Direct and Marks Electrical. Following today’s announcement, only the viagogo investigation remains open, as those into Wayfair, Appliances Direct and Gold’s Gym have now concluded (we have previously discussed the settlements involving AA and BSM Driving Schools, Marks Electrical and StubHub).

• Wayfair. Wayfair was fined £4.8 million in relation to false time-limited offers. The CMA found that Wayfair promoted “Daily Deals” and 24-hour “Flash Deals” using messaging such as “Here Today, Gone Tomorrow” alongside countdown timers, but that many products remained available at the same or a lower price after the stated deadline had passed. 
• Appliances Direct. Appliances Direct was fined £1.2 million in relation to both time-limited offers and automatic ‘opt-in’ options for extra, optional services. In respect of the ‘opt-in’ infringement, Appliances Direct was ordered to refund around £432,000 to customers, with average payouts of approximately £25 per customer. The CMA found that customers were automatically opted into paid extras, namely “Remove & Recycle Your Old Appliance” and/or “Installation on Delivery”. Businesses must obtain express agreement before charging for optional extras – pre-ticked boxes and automatic opt-ins are not permitted. Appliances Direct also used pop-up countdown banners offering discounts of £10 or £25 if customers completed their purchase before the timer expired. The CMA considered that customers may have been induced to complete their purchase as a result, even though the same discount codes appeared repeatedly over several days.                            
• Gold’s Gym. Gold’s Gym was fined £45,000 and ordered to refund £9,220 to 726 affected consumers, who will receive either £50 or £10 depending on their membership type. The CMA found that Gold’s Gym omitted material information, specifically a mandatory joining fee, which was introduced late in the customer journey and presented in a way that was unclear or unlikely to be seen. This obscured the total cost of membership.

Consistent with earlier cases, all three businesses engaged constructively with the CMA, admitted breaking the law and settled early. As a result, the CMA granted a 40% reduction to the financial penalty that would otherwise have applied.

Several investigations remain open – enforcement remains active

According to the CMA, it has opened 20 investigations since the direct enforcement regime came into effect in April 2025. Including the settlements announced today, the agency has reportedly obtained almost £2.4 million in consumer redress and imposed around £12 million in fines for consumer protection infringements. 

Outside formal enforcement action, the CMA continues to issue new guidance to businesses (see, for example, the Unfair Contract Terms Guidance released in July), monitor sectors for possible consumer law infringements and respond to market intelligence about possible infringements by individual companies. 

CMA outlines the path ahead

In its blog post, the CMA set out its enforcement priorities for the period ahead, now that the new regime has been in force for 18 months:

• Pricing practices. Pricing practices have been an early and consistent enforcement priority, and the CMA will continue to tackle practices that obscure the true costs of goods and services, including drip pricing, partition pricing and online designs. Most notably, the CMA stated that the rules in this area are “clear” and that businesses have had “ample” time to comply – a potential signal that it will show less leniency in future enforcement actions. Also noteworthy was the CMA’s stated expectation that discounts should be “genuine”. This may be a nod to was/now pricing practices (i.e., the use of reference prices), which were a focus in the Emma Sleep litigation, where the court ruled that the CMA’s preferred method for businesses to follow was unworkable. The CMA has since withdrawn its earlier guidance, and updated guidance may follow relatively soon.           
• Fake and misleading reviews. Fake and misleading reviews were previously identified as a priority and remain one of the regime’s three principal public enforcement themes, alongside drip pricing and online choice architecture. Investigations into Autotrader, Feefo, Dignity, Just Eat and Pasta Evangelists continue, with the CMA indicating that updates on those cases will follow over the winter.        
• AI products and services. The CMA previously flagged AI as a priority for this year, and is reportedly monitoring how AI products are marketed and used. This sits alongside the CMA's wider work on algorithmic risk, on which it has previously offered guidance. Businesses that deploy AI remain liable under consumer law for the actions of those tools.     
• Subscription contracts. The new subscription contracts regime comes into force in January 2027, with secondary legislation and guidance expected ahead of commencement. The CMA has indicated that in the early months it will focus on supporting businesses to comply but is explicit that businesses should not assume enforcement is thereby delayed: conduct during that period may be taken into account in any subsequent enforcement. Notably, the CMA already has an ongoing investigation into Microsoft concerning consumer-facing communications about its Microsoft 365 subscriptions. The CMA says it will use its powers proportionately, concentrating enforcement on more egregious conduct, in particular conduct where the obligations should already be clear under existing law.

The CMA has consistently been transparent about its enforcement priorities and, generally speaking, its subsequent actions have aligned with them. Businesses should be alive to these announcements and take active steps to ensure compliance. As noted above, the CMA considers that businesses have had “ample” time to comply with several of these rules. 

If you have questions about how the CMA's new enforcement powers may affect your business, or would like support reviewing your pricing practices for compliance, please contact a member of our consumer protection team.