Ryanair’s family seating policy investigated for its fairness

The probe, announced by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) last week, will examine whether contractual terms imposed by the budget airline on mandatory family seating are fair, as well as how the airline presents information about relevant charges. Ryanair has described the investigation as “bogus”.

According to the CMA, on the majority of its UK routes, Ryanair requires at least one parent to sit with their young children – and charges them around £8 per flight to do so. This, it said, “may mean parents are being charged for the airline to meet its child safety and disability‑related obligations as set out under aviation rules”. The CMA said it will scrutinise “whether or not this practice is in line with consumer law”. It has suggested the airline’s terms may constitute unfair contract terms under UK law.

“The CMA is investigating Ryanair’s use of and reliance on a potentially unfair contract term requiring consumers travelling with a child to pay a mandatory fee to sit next to that child,” the regulator said. “The CMA is also examining the presentation of that fee on Ryanair’s website and specifically whether the fee is included in the total price the consumer sees at the beginning of the purchase process.”

However, in a statement issued in response to the CMA’s announcement, Ryanair defended its family seating policy and said its policy “fully complies with all relevant laws and regulations and saves families money when travelling on the UK’s lowest fare airline”.

“Ryanair DOES NOT charge any fee for children to sit beside their parent or accompanying adult,” the company said in a statement. “Like all adults who select a reserved seat, adults travelling with children pay one reserved seat fee, but can select reserved seats beside them for up to four children on the same booking FREE OF CHARGE. This means that parents travelling with children pay for only one (adult) reserved seat but pay nothing for the four other reserved seats for their children travelling with them.”

Competition and consumer law experts Angelique Bret and Tadeusz Gielas said the case appears to address two distinct issues of consumer law compliance.

Bret said: “This appears to be both a substantive case about whether Ryanair’s T&Cs are ‘unfair’ - which may be a breach of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 and/or the relevant provisions of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, which can be directly enforced by the CMA under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) – as well as whether it has engaged in ‘drip pricing’, which can be a ‘per se’ breach of section 230 of the DMCCA.”

“There have been complaints for some time about Ryanair’s policy in respect of children sitting with their parents and the impact of this in the context of having to pay for an allocated seat. It remains to be seen whether the legal tests are met for this to amount to a breach of consumer law. This case demonstrates that the CMA is prepared to take on high profile cases and that consumer complaints may impact the CMA’s priorities,” said Bret.

Gielas said: “As well as focusing on suspected unfair contract terms and pricing transparency – coinciding with ongoing cost-of-living pressures and the approaching UK summer holiday season – the CMA’s investigation also touches on potential child safety considerations. The combination of these issues is likely to resonate with UK consumers and would have influenced the CMA’s decision to launch this investigation.”

This is the fifteenth investigation launched by the CMA using its new direct enforcement consumer law powers introduced by the DMCCA which came into force last year. Under the new regime – modelled on antitrust enforcement – the CMA can determine that consumer protection law was breached and impose monetary fines up to 10% of a company’s global turnover without taking court action.

Bret said: “The CMA still has ongoing cases under the court-based regime which predates the DMCCA, and recently resolved part of its court case against Emma Sleep. The CMA obtained a consent order to address misleading urgency claims made by the mattress company in relation to its online selling practices. However, aspects of the case involving ‘reference pricing’ – also known as ‘was / now’ pricing – were contested at trial earlier this month and judgment is awaited.”

Gielas added: “Consumer protection remains a focal point for the UK government, and several legislative bills announced in last month’s King’s Speech could have significant consumer protection implications for secondary ticketing for live entertainment and sporting events as well as in relation to the energy sector.”