Whilst we continue to await the first enforcement action under the CMA's new powers, other CMA activity in the consumer protection space suggests that dynamic pricing is likely to be prioritised for enforcement, alongside certain other practices.

Since gaining its new direct consumer enforcement powers in April (on which see our previous article), the CMA has remained relatively quiet about their use and is yet to announce the commencement of any formal investigations pursuant to them.

However, the CMA has been conducting a separate review of dynamic pricing (its “dynamic pricing project”) pursuant to its “general review function” under section 5 of the Enterprise Act 2002. The purpose of the review is to better understand how and when dynamic pricing is used across the economy. Despite it being conducted under different powers, statements the CMA makes as part of the review have the potential to inform businesses as to how the CMA is likely to apply its new enforcement powers to dynamic pricing. 

Separately, the CMA recently:

• provided an update on its investigation into Ticketmaster’s alleged use of dynamic pricing in the sale of Oasis concert tickets; 
• launched a consultation on additional draft guidance on drip pricing; and 
• warned a number of businesses that they are not in compliance with the new rules on fake reviews.

We explore each of these recent developments briefly below. 

Dynamic pricing project update

In its recent update on its review of dynamic pricing, the CMA defines dynamic pricing as situations in which “firms adjust prices rapidly and frequently in response to changing demand conditions”. It finds that dynamic pricing can be consistent with effective competition and good outcomes for consumers, including by helping businesses to make better use of their capacity, invest in creating new capacity, and improve efficiency. 

However, the CMA also finds that dynamic pricing can lead to poorer outcomes in certain circumstances, including when: (i) consumers are unaware that dynamic pricing is being used, or of its effect on prices; (ii) when consumers cannot “flex” their demand (such as for one-off live events); or (iii) when consumers feel pressured to make quick decisions because prices may rise suddenly.

The CMA’s update also provides some indications about the dynamic pricing practices it has observed, and how they may fit into the new consumer enforcement regime. 

In particular, Section 230 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) – which updated Regulation 6 of the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 – provides that the omission of “material information” from an “invitation to purchase” constitutes an unfair practice. Notwithstanding this requirement to include “material information”, the CMA reports that most of the businesses it engaged with as part of its review do not expressly inform consumers that they use dynamic pricing or explain how they set their prices. 

Although it accepts that the exact information that businesses need to provide to their customers will depend on the circumstances and the pricing model being used, the CMA provides examples of the sorts of information that might constitute material information that should be provided to consumers:

• a statement that prices can change and are not static;
• an explanation of what drivers make prices change, so consumers can understand when they might be able to get the best price; and
• the range of prices that might be applied (e.g. minimum and maximum amounts), to allow consumers to understand whether the good or service could end up being too expensive for them if they wait, or consider whether they should purchase it now or at another time.

The findings are consistent with a separate update provided by the CMA to a parliamentary committee last month on its consumer protection powers more generally. In particular, it indicated that one of the areas of “egregious practices” it expects to focus on is the provision of objectively false information to customers, including information about prices and the way that prices are set.

These indications suggest that businesses that fail to provide their customers with sufficient information on their dynamic pricing practices (or their pricing practices more generally) risk breaching consumer law – and with it the imposition of financial penalties of up to 10% of worldwide turnover (or £300,000 if higher). 

Ticketmaster investigation update

In a previous article, we provided an update on the launch of the CMA’s investigation into US-based ticket sales and distribution company Ticketmaster, including a review of the sales practices used to sell tickets for Oasis’ reunion tour. 

The CMA has now concluded its investigation, and recently provided an update summarising the consumer law concerns it has identified, namely:

• labelling certain seated tickets as “platinum” and selling them for nearly two and a half times the price of equivalent standard tickets, without sufficiently explaining that they did not offer additional benefits and were often located in the same areas of the stadium; and
• not informing consumers that there were two categories of standing tickets at different prices, with all of the cheaper standing tickets sold first, before the more expensive standing tickets were released, resulting in many fans waiting in a lengthy queue without understanding what they would be paying, and then having to decide whether to pay a higher price than they originally expected.

It is notable that, although this investigation was opened on the basis of suspicions that Ticketmaster was using dynamic pricing, the CMA does not suggest that these concerns stem from such practices. Instead, it explains that it “did not find evidence that Ticketmaster used an algorithmic pricing model to adjust ticket prices in real time according to changing conditions like high demand”. 

As the Oasis ticket sale took place prior to the commencement of the CMA’s direct consumer enforcement powers, Court action would be needed to impose penalties on Ticketmaster. The CMA therefore sought to obtain undertakings from Ticketmaster to address the concerns it has identified, but the latest update suggests that Ticketmaster has declined to offer any. The CMA has indicated it is now preparing to pursue the matter in the Courts, but only time will tell whether it does so.

Other developments

Drip pricing

Another practice the CMA recently highlighted as an area of focus going forward is the imposition of fees that are hidden until late in the purchase process (sometimes known as “drip pricing”). 

The CMA indicated back in March that it would be prioritising enforcement only of those aspects of drip pricing where it considered the law was already clear. However, the CMA has now recently issued additional draft guidance in relation to the remaining areas of drip pricing where it considered there was a lack of clarity. Notable points include the following:

• Mandatory vs optional charges: The CMA provides general expanded guidance on when a charge is “mandatory” (and must be included in the headline price) and when it is “optional” (and does not need to be included in the headline price). 
• Delivery charges: The CMA confirms that delivery charges will be optional charges if the consumer is able to purchase and receive the product without having to pay the cost of delivery (e.g. by collecting the product in-store for free). 
• One-off fees (e.g. administration or booking fees): The CMA confirms that whilst mandatory per-transaction charges should generally be included in the headline price, where a website allows multiple products to be selected and purchased together and the fees are only paid once, it may not always be realistic to do this. The CMA provides examples that businesses could adopt to secure compliance in these circumstances.
• Requirement to state the price for the entire minimum contract length: The CMA considers that when a monthly service is provided in exchange for a monthly price, traders should be able to satisfy their obligations by including the monthly price (along with the minimum number of months the consumer will have to pay that price for) and are not required to provide a total cumulative price for the fixed term of the contract.

This draft guidance is still being consulted on. Nevertheless, it provides a helpful indication to businesses of the CMA’s thinking, and will allow them to start planning on how to ensure compliance going forward.

Fake reviews

Following the publishing of new guidance on fake reviews in April, and having allowed for a three-month “adjustment period” for businesses to begin complying with new rules in this area, the CMA has now proactively begun to monitor and promote compliance with those rules.

Notably, on 25 July 2025 it issued a short statement explaining that it had completed a review of 100 websites and found that just over half had no, or inadequate, policies on fake and incentivised reviews. It has therefore written to the relevant businesses, advising them to review the guidance and explain what changes they are making to comply with the law.

We should expect further such informal yet proactive enforcement measures from the CMA as the new regime beds in. But at some point, the CMA is likely to need to deploy its new fining powers to incentivise compliance.

Conclusions

The action against Ticketmaster is but one of numerous investigations the CMA has brought using its pre-existing consumer powers – many of which have been successfully concluded through use of commitments. 

Nevertheless, if the CMA is to realise its goal of putting consumer enforcement on a par with competition enforcement, not only will it need to grapple with cutting edge business practices like dynamic pricing, but it will also need to raise awareness of the new rules and provide more certainty as to how such practices are to be treated under the new regime. Whilst the CMA now seems to be taking steps to provide that certainty, until it progresses its first enforcement cases, much will remain unclear.

In the meantime, consumer-facing businesses would be well-advised to keep abreast of relevant additional guidance as it is finalised, to ensure they remain compliant.