UK Trends and Developments Contributed by: Samantha Ward, Ben Jasper, Ryan Byrne and Chloe Lettington, Clifford Chance LLP
enhanced investigative powers, including: (i) expand - ing the documents the CMA can collect when entering premises using a warrant to also include information accessible from the premises, in addition to docu - ments stored on the premises; (ii) introducing new civil penalties where an individual fails to comply with the CMA’s investigatory powers; and (iii) introducing a duty on persons to preserve documents where they know or suspect that an investigation is, or is likely to be, carried out by the CMA. The Act also gives the CMA direct enforcement powers to decide whether key consumer protection laws have been breached without having to take businesses to court. In April 2025, the CMA set out its approach to imple - menting an enhanced consumer protection regime under the DMCCA 2024. The CMA has confirmed that this approach will continue to shape its priorities for 2026–2027. This approach combines business guid - ance with direct enforcement action through a number of investigations in priority areas. The CMA intends to prioritise sectors involving essential consumer spend - ing and focus enforcement on practices it considers particularly harmful to consumers, including: • aggressive sales practices targeting vulnerable consumers; • the provision of objectively false information to consumers; • banned practices, including fake reviews; • fees that are not disclosed until late in the purchas - ing process – ie, drip-pricing; and • unfair or imbalanced contract terms. Recent CMA enforcement activity demonstrates this approach in practice. In August 2026, the CMA launched investigations into Trainline, Virgin Atlantic and RED Driving School as part of a broader pro - gramme examining online pricing practices. These cases build on the CMA’s consumer protection drive launched in November 2025, when it opened inves - tigations into eight businesses and issued advisory letters to approximately 100 businesses across 14 sectors following a cross-economy review of online pricing and sales practices. The November 2025 investigations involved StubHub, Viagogo, AA Driv - ing School, BSM Driving School, Gold’s Gym, Wayfair, Appliances Direct and Marks Electrical, and focused
on practices such as drip-pricing, hidden mandatory fees, misleading countdown timers and automatic opt-ins for additional services. Collective Actions Certification The certification process for collective proceedings brought in the CAT has been heavily litigated since the regime was introduced in 2015. Since Walter Merricks CBE v Mastercard Incorporated & Ors [2020] UKSC 51, the bar to certification has generally been considered to be relatively low, with the vast majority of cases being certified. However, recently there appears to be a trend towards greater scrutiny of certification appli - cations in the CAT, particularly following the Supreme Court’s judgment in Evans v Barclays Bank Plc and Others [2025] UKSC 48, which held that the strength of a claim and the practicability of opt-in proceedings are relevant (and can be decisive) factors when the CAT decides whether to certify collective proceedings. In several recent cases, the CAT has refused to certify collective proceedings. In Christine Riefa Class Rep- resentative Limited v Apple Inc . & Others [2025] CAT 5, the CAT did not consider that the proposed class representative satisfied the authorisation conditions to be a class representative, in large part because she did not have a sufficient understanding of the funding agreements involved in the claim. In David Rowntree v PRS For Music Limited [2025] CAT 49, the CAT refused the CPO on the basis that (i) it was not shown that group members had existing individual claims capable of satisfying Section 47B; (ii) PRS had failed to identify a sufficiently credible and plausible methodology for assessing aggregate damages; and (iii) the cost-benefit test under CAT Rule 79 (2)(a) was not met, since litigation costs and the funder’s return might together equal or exceed any damages recov - ered. Most recently in Waterside Class Limited v Mowi ASA & Others [2026] CAT 32, the CAT refused the CPO on similar proportionality grounds, finding that pro - ceedings would have “principally benefited the law - yers and funder” given insufficient evidence that any amount returned to the class would be proportionate to, or exceed, the costs incurred.
238 A NTITRUST LI T IGATI O N 2026
CHAMBERS.COM
Powered by FlippingBook