Main Developments in Competition Law and Policy 2025 – United Kingdom

2025 saw seismic developments in competition law in the UK, both in terms of regulation and litigation. This blog provides a high-level overview of those developments.

The UK competition law landscape in 2025 was marked by three trends: a major overhaul of the CMA’s approach to regulation in line with the Government’s ‘pro-growth’ agenda; a maturing of the private enforcement regime; and the ushering in of a new digital and consumer regulatory regime under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA).

Regulatory Action

Reform – Merger Regulation

The Government kicked off 2025 by placing competition law front and centre of its agenda, removing the Chair of the CMA, Marcus Bokkerink, stating that he had not demonstrated the CMA was sufficiently focused on growth. Mr Bokkerink was replaced by Doug Gurr, formerly of Amazon.1 The Government reiterated its concerns by issuing the CMA with a “strategic steer”, in which it stressed that the CMA needed to prioritise pro-growth and pro-investment interventions.2

The CMA responded to this steer by issuing Guidance in April 2025, setting out how it would deliver the “4Ps” in its approach to regulation, i.e. pace, predictability, proportionality and process.3 That Guidance explains how the CMA will ensure that the national priority of economic growth, or the “growth mission”, is respected in its work as a regulator.

This was followed by a slew of updated guidance and policies in relation to merger control. Notably, the CMA published updated merger control guidance on jurisdiction and procedure (CMA2), its merger intelligence function (CMA56), and merger remedies (CMA87), explicitly with a view to embedding its “4Ps” framework into merger processes.

Changes included introducing: a 40 working-day target for pre-notification and 25 days for phase 1; a “wait and see” approach to global mergers that concern global markets and which are being reviewed by international regulators; further guidance on how the CMA applies the jurisdictional “material influence” and “share of supply” threshold tests; and processes to encourage more engagement with parties early on in an investigation including “teach-ins” and informal update calls.

The most notable change to the remedies guidance was an indication of greater flexibility towards behavioural remedies, indicating the CMA may be more willing to consider behavioural remedies and in a wider variety of circumstances. This change had been foreshadowed in the clearing of the “four to three” mobile telecoms Vodafone / Three merger, in relation to which the CMA accepted final undertakings in March 2025. Unusually, the CMA accepted behavioural commitments from the parties to address its concerns that the merger would lead to a substantial lessening of competition. The parties agreed to an £11bn investment programme alongside shorter term customer protections in relation to price caps and contract terms.

The pace of change has yet to slow - in January 2026 the CMA launched a consultation on amending jurisdictional thresholds for mergers, alongside several other significant aspects of the merger regime. The jurisdictional thresholds for mergers have already been updated via the DMCCA in January 2025, amending the turnover test in the Enterprise Act 2002 from £70 million to £100 million, requiring that the share of supply test applies only if one party has a UK turnover in excess of £10 million (i.e. introducing a new safe harbour), and introducing a hybrid test, which applies where one party supplies or acquires at least 33% of all goods or services of a particular description in the UK and has a turnover exceeding £350 million, and the other party has a UK nexus.

The CMA did not block any merger in 2025.

Competition Act 1998 Enforcement and Market Studies and Investigations

The CMA pursued numerous investigations and took enforcement action in industries including online ticket sales, cloud services, dentistry, infant formula, vets, and gilt markets.

The CMA accepted binding commitments in a number of cases. One notable example concerned suspected breaches of Chapter I^[4] by housebuilders regarding the exchange of competitively sensitive information. The CMA’s concerns included that these housebuilders had allegedly shared information relating to the prices at which they had agreed sales, incentives they had given buyers, and the number of properties reserved, sold or cancelled at housing developments. As part of the commitments, the housebuilders agreed to pay £100 million to the UK government, to be used towards affordable homes. An opt-out collective proceeding is reportedly being launched against the housebuilders, for filing in 2026, on behalf of homebuyers.

Another interesting commitments decision concerned a suspected breach of Chapter II^[5] by Vifor Pharma, by allegedly making misleadingly disparaging comments about the safety of a competing iron treatment.4 The decision marked the first time the CMA considered disparagement as an abuse of dominance, whilst continuing its long-running focus into suspected competition breaches of competition law in the pharmaceuticals sector.5 The commitments included a payment of £23 million to the NHS, and a communication campaign to address and clarify the potentially harmful effects of the suspected conduct.

The CMA also settled several cases, including cases against five pairs of banks which infringed Chapter I by unlawfully sharing competitively sensitive information concerning the buying and selling of gilts and gilt asset swaps. The CMA was alerted to the unlawful conduct by one bank under the leniency policy. It imposed fines of over £100 million in total.

In a time of increasing focus on the application of competition law in the employment context, the CMA settled a case concerning the breach of Chapter I through the disclosure, receipt and exchange of competitively sensitive information in respect of the rates of pay for freelance workers who support the production and broadcasting of sports content. The CMA also released new guidance  setting out what businesses should consider in competition law terms when recruiting workers and setting working conditions.

Regarding market investigations and market studies, the CMA closed its market investigation into cloud services, having concluded that competition was not working well in the market. However, it decided that the CMA should use its digital market powers under the DMCCA to commence investigations to consider designating the largest providers as holding strategic market status (SMS). It concluded that doing so could allow the CMA to formulate measures to address its market wide concerns.

Outside of the tech space, the CMA published its final report regarding its infant and follow-on formula market study. That report found that the market was generating poor outcomes for parents in terms of the choices they make and prices they pay for infant formula. The CMA has made a number of recommendations including measures aimed at eliminating brand influence in healthcare settings and strengthening the labelling and advertising rules. It also published its provisional findings from a market investigation into vet businesses, concerning information on prices, treatments, medicines and ownership, and proposing wide-ranging remedies.

In terms of consumer enforcement cases opened prior to the implementation of the DMCCA, the CMA accepted undertakings from Ticketmaster in connection with its sale of tickets for the Oasis Live ’25 Tour. Those undertakings require, inter alia, that Ticketmaster not use any misleading ticket labels, and provide more information about ticket prices during online queues. The CMA also continued to pursue its action against the Emma Group for allegedly harmful online selling practices, with trial listed to take place in 2026.

CMA appeals took up relatively small amounts of CAT and Court time this year, with the only judgment, in Liothyronine, upholding the CAT and CMA decision concerning the excessive pricing of liothyronine tablets by several pharmaceutical companies.6

Outside of the merger space, the pace of change in guidance and policy was slower. However, the CMA did publish an updated leniency policy (CMA210), which seeks to encourage firms and individuals to cooperate with the CMA in return for immunity. The new policy makes changes to the immunity and discount levels available to applicants who are not the first to report and provide evidence of a cartel, with an aim to encourage undertakings to be the first to apply for leniency (known as “type A” applicants).

DMCCA

An overview of the fundamental changes to competition and consumer law enforcement ushered in by the DMCCA is beyond the scope of this article. However, 2025 saw the first implementation of investigations and decisions under the DMCCA.

The digital markets regime under the DMCCA came into force at the start of 2025. The CMA made its first SMS designation in October 2025, designating Google as holding SMS in general search services, and Apple and Google in respect of their mobile platforms.

The DMCCA also provided the CMA, from April 2025, with a suite of new powers to directly enforce consumer law (thereby bringing the regime more in line with its powers to take action against conduct in breach of the Competition Act 1998), as well as new provisions to protect consumers such as prohibitions on drip-pricing and fake reviews. Previously, the CMA was required to apply to the courts to enforce consumer law breaches.

The CMA launched the first investigations under its new consumer law powers against eight companies, in relation to their use of fees, use of suspected misleading time-limited offers and/or the practice of automatically opting consumers in for optional charges. It also sent advisory letters to 100 business concerning the use of additional fees and online sales tactics. The CMA launched new guidance e.g. on direct consumer enforcement (CMA200), price transparency (CMA209), and unfair commercial practices (CMA207).

Litigation

Competition Appeal Tribunal

2025 saw the continuing development and maturing of the collective proceedings regime in the UK, from certification through to trial and settlement.

The CAT’s “gatekeeper” role in relation to the certification of proceedings was brought to the fore in a number of proceedings. Most notable was the decision to refuse to certify the claim in Riefa v Apple and Ors, on the basis that the Tribunal did not consider that the Proposed Class Representative satisfied the authorisation condition to act fairly and adequately in the interests of class members.7  This was followed by two other decisions in which the CAT refused certification, in Roberts v Severn Trent and Ors,8 and Rowntree v PRS9 - appeals are pending in both.

However, the CAT also certified several claims e.g. Hammond and Stephan v Amazon and Ors,10  Rodger v Alphabet and Ors,11 Bulk Mail v International Distribution Services,12 Spottiswoode v Airwave and Ors,13 and Gutmann v Vodafone and Ors.14 Judgment is pending in several other CPO applications which were heard in 202515 e.g. Stasi v Microsoft and Ors and Consumers' Association v Apple and Ors, with several collective proceedings also filed in 2025 e.g. ASCO v Amazon and Ors, Kaye v Alphabet and Ors, Wolfson v Microsoft and Ors, and Or Brook v Google and Ors. As this list demonstrates, the bulk of collective proceedings continue to be focussed in the “tech space”.

The CAT’s diary will therefore be largely taken up with the management and hearing of collective proceedings for many years to come. In 2026 alone it is set to hear a 10-week trial in Neill v Sony and Ors, and a 14-week trial in Epic, Coll and Rodger v Google v Ors, with other trials already listed for several years in advance including, for example Gormsen v Meta (2027, 10 weeks) and  Adtech v Alphabet and Ors (2028, 12 weeks).

The CAT also clarified the application of its gatekeeper role in the context of carriage disputes i.e. when there are two (or more) competing applications for a Collective Proceedings Order on behalf of the same or overlapping classes. In a useful judgment, Bira Trading Limited v Amazon and Ors and Stephan v Amazon and Ors,16 it provided guidance on the factors the CAT is likely to take into account when determining a carriage dispute.

Another aspect of increasing CAT scrutiny of collective proceedings concerns the terms of funding agreements (LFAs). The CAT’s assessment of the terms of LFAs (combined with Defendants’ challenges concerning LFA terms) appears to be influencing the conduct of Proposed Class Representatives up to and during carriage and certification hearings. For example, Proposed Class Representatives amended the terms of their LFAs in several cases, following CAT scrutiny of the same e.g. Stephan and Hammond v Ors (concerning settlement and review of legal costs provisions),17 Rodger v Alphabet and Ors (concerning termination, dispute resolution, and  funder’s return provisions),18 and Spottiswoode v Airwave (concerning adverse costs liability).19

Beyond certification, the CAT handed down two substantive judgments following trials of opt-out collective proceedings. In the first, Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains and Ors,20 the CAT dismissed a claim alleging abuse of dominance by failing to make boundary fares sufficiently available for sale for customers and / or to take reasonable steps to make customers aware of such fares.

The second was Kent v Apple,21 a case concerning an alleged abuse of dominance by Apple, in which the Class Representative argued that Apple imposed restrictive terms which require iOS app developers to distribute iOS apps exclusively via the App Store and requiring that all purchases are made using the App Store Payment Processing System, and by charging excessive and unfair prices. The Class Representative was successful in all aspects of her claim – the first time a Class Representative has won at trial. The judgment addresses a myriad of important issues in modern competition law analysis such as market definition in the context of digital markets, objective justification, and application of the Bronner doctrine. At the time of writing a permission to appeal application is pending before the Court of Appeal.

The CAT also approved a number of settlements of collective proceedings, an area which until 2025 was relatively unchartered water for parties and the Tribunal. The CAT approved settlements in McLaren v MOL and Ors22 and also in the long-running Merricks v Mastercard case,23 in proceedings which saw the funder object to and intervene in the settlement hearing. The Tribunal was also called upon to address questions concerning the distribution of non-ringfenced funds, upon settlement of a claim, to funders, insurers, advisors and / or charity (Gutmann v First MTR South Western Trains and Ors).24 The Tribunal expressed disappointment at the level of uptake of damages by the class and ordered that a payment to charity of £4 million should be made, minus the amount distributed to the class. The amount remaining of non-ringfenced costs was allocated by the Tribunal to the funder, insurers and legal stakeholders.

Against this backdrop of a developing and maturing collective proceedings regime, the Government issued a consultation on its future, with a focus on whether the regime is delivering access to justice for consumers effectively without being disproportionately burdensome on business. The result of that consultation is awaited.

Outside of collective actions, the CAT saw a small number of private claims go to trial. It dismissed a claim for damages in PSA Automobiles v Autoliv and Ors,25 where the claimants had sought to allege a cartel in the market for car occupant safety systems components. However, the CAT - unusually – has given the claimant permission to appeal. The claimants in the London Array follow-on claim successfully secured judgment that a power cables cartel had caused them loss in the form of overcharge in relation to high voltage export cables, and also secured a favourable judgment in relation to pass-on, finding that the overcharge loss was not passed on through higher levels of subsidies.26 

High Court

In the High Court, a significant judgment was handed down by Bacon J (who is also the CAT president) in Cabo v MGA.27 The Court found that MGA had abused its dominant position by conducting an exclusionary campaign which sought to stifle the launch of Cabo’s competitor product. However the competition claim failed as Bacon J concluded that Cabo had not shown that MGA’s conduct caused it loss. Bacon J also found that the Vertical Block Exemption Regulation applied to several of the agreements between MGA and toy retailers and so the Chapter I claim failed. The Court did however make a declaration that MGA’s conduct had amounted to unjustified patent threats.28

Another rather more unusual outing for competition law arose in the Thames Water proceedings.29 This case concerned the approval of a restructuring plan, which proponents of the plan argued was required to enable Thames Water to access significant further funding. However, a competition law question arose because one of the objections to the plan by a group of junior creditors was that aspects of the plan infringed the Chapter I prohibition. This objection was dismissed.

Court of Appeal

Decisions from the CAT and the Competition List of the High Court kept the Court of Appeal busy in 2025.

In the collective proceedings space, the Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal in Le Patourel v BT,30 which had been the first opt-out collective proceeding to go to trial. The CAT had dismissed the claim that BT had abused its dominance on the market for standalone fixed voice services by excessively pricing telephone services. Whilst the CAT had found that BT was dominant on the relevant market and had charged prices in excess of a ‘cost-plus’ benchmark, it found that the prices were fair. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal on all grounds. In BSV Claims v Bittylicious,31 the Court of Appeal upheld the CAT’s decision to strike out part of the Class Representative’s claim which related to loss of chance, and also upheld the CAT’s finding that the “market mitigation rule” applied i.e. holders of BSV were expected to mitigate their losses by divesting into available markets once they had become aware of the alleged wrongdoing.

The Court of Appeal also handed down several significant judgments in relation to the funding of collective proceedings. Firstly, it handed down a judgment regarding the power of the CAT to order that a funder’s fee or return be paid out of damages awarded to the class in priority to the class, and the ability of Class Representatives to enter into such agreements. In Gutmann v Apple and Ors,32 the Court of Appeal dismissed Apple’s appeal, finding that the CAT had jurisdiction to make such an order, and that Class Representatives accordingly could enter into such agreements.33 The upshot of the decision is that funders and lawyers may in principle be paid before any distribution is made to class members.

The Court of Appeal also considered conjoined appeals from several class actions considering the enforceability of LFAs entered into by the Class Representatives.34 Those Class Representatives had amended their LFAs following the 2023 Supreme Court decision in R (PACCAR) v CAT [2023] UKSC which had found the LFAs to be damages based agreements (DBAs) and so unenforceable. The Court of Appeal upheld the CAT’s decision that the revised LFAs were not DBAs, meaning that the agreements did not require further amendment.

The Government has also announced an intention to clarify that LFAs are not DBAs i.e. a statutory overrule of PACCAR, in order to remove what it described as a barrier to accessing third-party funding.

Outside of collective actions, the Court of Appeal heard several other appeals, the most notable of which was an appeal against Roth J’s 2023 judgment in Phones4U v EE Limited and Ors.35 The High Court had dismissed a claim by administrators of Phones4U against several mobile network operators for (amongst other alleged tortious wrongdoing) allegedly unlawfully colluding to terminate contracts to supply Phones4U.36 The Court of Appeal upheld Roth J’s judgment.

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court handed down a significant judgment in Evans v Barclays Bank and Ors concerning the collective proceedings regime.37 The implications of this important judgment are beyond the scope of this article and have been extensively covered in commentary elsewhere, but in short, the Supreme Court found, contrary to the Court of Appeal’s judgment below, that a weakness in a collective proceeding claim was a factor weighing against certifying on an opt-out (rather than opt-in) basis. It also confirmed that the rule in Hollington v Hewthorn concerning the (in)admissibility of findings by another decision-maker applied in the CAT. The consequences of this judgment are likely to reverberate through litigation in the CAT across 2026 and beyond.

Subsidy Control

The CMA’s Subsidy Control Unit entered its third year of operation and, as required by legislation, commenced a review of its performance.

In terms of litigation, there continues to be only a small number of subsidy control challenges. The CAT handed down its second subsidy control judgment in Weis v Greater Manchester Combined Authority,38 dismissing the application for review on all grounds. The CAT also heard the review in the third subsidy control case in The New Lottery Company Ltd and Others v The Gambling Commission, with judgment pending at the time of writing.

The Court of Appeal dismissed an appeal against the decision of the Divisional Court in R (British Gas Trading Limited and Ors) v Secretary of State for Energy Security and Net Zero,39 which concerned the transfer of the business energy of Bulb Energy to Octopus.   The main issue in the case concerned the compatibility of the funding provided by the Government for completion of the sale under the EU-UK Trade and Cooperation Agreement. The Court of Appeal upheld the lower court’s decision that the grant of the subsidy was lawful.

Conclusion – Looking Ahead

As this broadbrush outline demonstrates, developments in the competition law regime in the UK continue apace. Competition lawyers and economists – and their clients – as well as the regulators can expect to continue to be kept very busy across 2026. Likely to be of most interest in the coming year will be the bedding in of the DMCCA regime, the true impact of which remains to be seen both in terms of the regulation of digital markets and consumer enforcement. The competition community will also await with the interest the outcome of the consultation on further changes to the CMA’s merger regime and the consultation on the collective proceedings regime.

• 1Still in post at the CMA as interim Chair at time of writing.
• 2Issued in draft in February and finalised in May.
• 3See also the “Mergers Charter”: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/mergers-charter-how-to-work-with-the-cma-on-a-merger-investigation/mergers-charter.
• 4The Chapter I prohibition (s.2 of the Competition Act 1998) prohibits agreements between undertakings, decisions by associations of undertakings or concerted practices which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition within the United Kingdom and which in the case of agreements, decisions or practices implemented, or intended to be implemented in the United Kingdom, may affect trade in the United Kingdom, or in any other case, are likely to have an immediate, substantial and foreseeable effect on trade within the United Kingdom.
• 5The Chapter II prohibition (s.18 of the Competition Act 1998) prohibits any conduct on the part of one or more undertakings which amounts to the abuse of a dominant position in a market if it may affect trade within the United Kingdom.
• 6See also the EC decision: https://ec.europa.eu/competition/antitrust/cases1/202445/AT_40577_10333580_3473_8.pdf
• 7See, for example: Hydrocortisone tablets: alleged excessive and unfair pricing, anti-competitive agreements and abusive conduct (50277) - GOV.UK; Phenytoin sodium capsules: suspected unfair pricing - GOV.UK; Liothyronine tablets: suspected excessive and unfair pricing - GOV.UK; https://www.gov.uk/cma-cases/pharmaceuticals-suspected-anti-competitive-agreements. 
• 8[2025] EWCA Civ 578.
• 9[2025] CAT 5.
• 10[2025] CAT 17.
• 11[2025] CAT 49. The CAT unusually granted permission to appeal itself in this case.
• 12[2025] CAT 42. Permission to appeal application pending before the Court of Appeal, due to be heard in February 2026.
• 13[2025] CAT 45.
• 14[2025] CAT 19.
• 15[2025] CAT 60.
• 16[2025] CAT 77.
• 17Pending at the time of writing. Shotbolt v Valve was certified in January 2026.
• 18[2025] CAT 6. The Court of Appeal refused permission to appeal the judgment in March 2025.
• 19[2025] CAT 42.
• 20[2025] CAT 45.
• 21[2025] CAT 60.
• 22[2025] CAT 64.
• 23[2025] CAT 67.
• 24[2025] CAT 4.
• 25[2025] CAT 28.
• 26[2025] CAT 72.
• 27[2025] CAT 9.
• 28[2025] CAT 59; [2025] CAT 68 – the hearing was held concurrently with the Spottiswoode collective proceeding. The outcome of that judgment was that part of the Spottiswoode v Nexans and Ors claim cannot proceed.
• 29[2025] EWHC 1451 (Ch).
• 30The Court of Appeal heard a permission to appeal application in December 2025. It adjourned the application on two grounds to a rolled-up hearing  - [2025] EWCA Civ 1652.
• 31In the matter of Thames Water Utilities Holdings Limited and in the matter of the Companies Act 2006 [2025] EWHC 338 (Ch).
• 32[2025] EWCA Civ 1061. 
• 33[2025] EWCA Civ 661.
• 34[2025] EWCA Civ 459.
• 35Permission to appeal was refused by the UKSC on 8 October 2025.
• 36[2025] EWCA Civ 841.
• 37[2025] EWCA Civ 869.
• 38The other Court of Appeal cases in 2025 concerning competition law were Sky v Ofcom [2025] EWCA Civ 1118 (concerning the definition of an “electronic communications service”); Airwave Solutions Ltd v CMA [2025] EWCA Civ 54 (refusing permission to appeal a CAT decision upholding the CMA’s finding that Motorola had charged supra-competitive prices);and Secretary of State for Health and Social Care & Ors v Lundbeck [2025] EWCA Civ 677 (concerning the correct limitation period to apply to proceedings brought before the High Court in 2019 and later transferred to the CAT).
• 39[2025] UKSC 48.