CMA increases consumer law compliance scrutiny

Angelique Bret and Tadeusz Gielas of Pinsent Masons were commenting after the CMA last week announced that it is investigating five companies’ practices in relation to online reviews or star ratings. The regulator opened a separate investigation focused on the use of early termination fees earlier last month. It means the CMA now has 14 ‘live’ consumer law cases open under the ‘direct enforcement’ consumer law powers it has, which were introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) and came into force in April 2025.

The companies involved in the online consumer reviews cases are Autotrader, Feefo, Dignity, Just Eat, and Pasta Evangelists.

“The CMA’s work is looking at the key stages in the online reviews ecosystem – from how reviews are obtained, to the way they are moderated and displayed, to the star ratings people so often rely on,” it said. “By taking cases across each of these stages, the CMA is investigating multiple practices that can shape what people see when they search, shop or book online.”

“In April 2025, several practices relating to online reviews became ‘banned practices’ under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act), meaning they are automatically deemed unfair and illegal. This includes obtaining and posting fake reviews, and paid-for reviews that are not clearly marked as incentivised. It also covers how reviews are handled – for example, if negative reviews are hidden, or if star ratings present an inaccurate picture,” the CMA added.

In its early termination fees case, the CMA is investigating whether software company Adobe has breached UK consumer protection laws owing to the fees it charges customers to terminate subscription contracts early and in relation to the information the company provides customers about those fees.

In a statement, the CMA said: “[Adobe] customers who cancel more than 14 days after signing up to its ‘annual billed monthly’ plan – where they agree to a yearly contract and pay monthly – must pay 50% of the remaining yearly cost. After they cancel, customers will have access to the product until the end of that month’s billing period. The investigation will examine whether these terms are unfair and if customers are given clear and timely information upfront about the early cancellation fees, which are likely to influence their decision to purchase the product.”

The CMA said it will undertake some initial information and evidence gathering between now and the autumn before providing an update on the case. It stressed that no finding has yet been made in the case and that, at this stage, “it should not be assumed that Adobe has infringed consumer protection law”.

Bret said: “Last November, the CMA simultaneously launched eight new consumer law investigations using its DMCCA powers and is expected to shortly provide updates on the progress of those cases. While those investigations focus on pricing transparency and selling tactics, the case against Adobe focuses on cancellation fees, and the CMA’s five latest investigations target fake and misleading consumer reviews.”

Commenting on the Adobe case, Bret said: “The DMCCA has created a new set of rules especially for subscription contracts, however these provisions have not yet come into force – they were initially expected to commence around spring 2026, but it is understood this is now more likely to occur in autumn 2026 or later. In the meantime, the CMA appears to be running this investigation using its powers to tackle unfair commercial practices (UCPs) under the DMCCA and unfair contract terms under wider consumer protection rules.”

With regards to the CMA’s fake and misleading reviews investigations, Bret said: “So-called ‘fake reviews’ are an outright banned practice under the DMCCA, meaning that to establish a breach of the law the CMA does not need to demonstrate that a review caused an ‘average consumer’ to take a ‘transactional decision’ they would not have otherwise taken. In recent months the CMA has published detailed fake reviews compliance guidance and warned businesses that it would take action against traders over suspected non-compliance with the new rules.”

Gielas said: “The CMA’s latest investigations appear to cover different aspects of the DMCCA fake reviews prohibition, examining the suspected use of self-generated and concealed incentivised reviews as well as how overall review ratings are calculated.”

“The way the DMCCA ‘direct enforcement’ framework is structured means the CMA can use its new enforcement and fining powers across a wide range of new and pre-existing UK consumer protection laws, including the UCPs provisions, the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and other consumer laws. In recent weeks, the CMA has also worked on updating its separate guidance on unfair contract terms, and the Adobe case appears to be part of the authority’s focus in that area,” added Gielas.

Bret said: “April 2026 marks one year since in the CMA gained its new ‘direct enforcement’ consumer law powers under the DMCCA that allow it to determine consumer law breaches and fine companies up to 10% of their global annual turnover without first taking court action. The CMA has increased its enforcement efforts in the lead-up to this anniversary. Recently, it imposed the first ever DMCCA procedural fine – approaching £500,000 – for a company’s non-compliance with a mandatory information request”.