UK competition reform: Government consults on faster redress, appeals and enforcement

On 17 July 2026, the UK Government launched a consultation on reforms to make parts of the UK competition regime faster, simpler and more efficient. The proposals focus on three areas: (i) opt-out collective competition claims; (ii) appeals against certain regulatory decisions; and (iii) investigations by the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”).

The proposals aim to reduce unnecessary cost, complexity and delay, whilst maintaining appropriate safeguards for businesses and other parties. If implemented, the changes could affect how competition claims are funded, certified and resolved, how regulated businesses challenge decisions, and how businesses respond to CMA investigations. The consultation closes on 25 September 2026.

Summary of the proposals

Collective competition claims

The UK’s opt-out collective actions regime for competition claims allows a proposed class representative to apply to the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the “CAT”) for an order to bring collective proceedings on behalf of a group of affected consumers or businesses, without each individual claimant having to opt in to the claim at the outset. The Government is now considering reforms to make competition claims more efficient. These include proposals on how claims are brought and financed, the use of alternative dispute resolution and settlement, and how collective claims should interact with public enforcement by the CMA. The stated aim is to make meritorious claims easier to progress and resolve, whilst retaining safeguards to filter out weak claims and protect defendants from unfair process.

Despite earlier suggestions that the opt-out regime might be extended beyond competition law to encompass consumer law claims, the Government has, for the time being, decided neither to limit or expand its scope. That position may, however, evolve, as the Law Commission is currently considering the potential benefits and risks of introducing a consumer class actions regime.

The Government proposes to:

• raise the certification threshold, including by requiring the CAT to consider the absolute suitability of a claim, the costs and benefits of allowing it to proceed, likely class take-up and whether there is sufficient evidence to assess aggregate damages;

• reform litigation funding, including by lifting the prohibition on damages-based agreements (“DBAs”) in opt-out collective actions and giving funders greater certainty on the reasonableness and timing of their return;

• provide clarity for class representatives, following recent CAT decisions, the Government considers that the rules or guidance governing class representatives in collective proceedings could be clarified to provide greater certainty around funding oversight, independence and governance arrangements;

• strengthen case management and costs controls, including by requiring post-certification budgets, allowing costs sanctions where parties unreasonably drive-up costs, and giving the CAT greater scope to encourage or require settlement and ADR;

• enhance the CMA’s redress powers, including by allowing the CMA to accept binding redress undertakings, simplifying voluntary redress schemes and potentially requiring redress schemes where appropriate;

•  protect incentives for cartel reporting, by seeking views on whether first-in Type A leniency applicants should receive immunity from civil damages in certain circumstances;

• address undistributed damages and consumer take-up, including by supporting measures to increase awareness of live claims and seeking views on which organisations should benefit from undistributed damages; and

• improve CAT resourcing and efficiency, including by introducing claim-value-based filing fees for private litigation, allowing more flexible panel composition and reviewing the CAT Rules at least every three years.

An important backdrop to these proposals is the Supreme Court’s PACCAR judgment. The Court held that certain third-party litigation funding agreements, where the funder’s return was calculated as a percentage of the damages recovered, constituted DBAs. This was significant because DBAs are subject to strict statutory requirements and are not permitted for opt-out collective proceedings in the CAT. In practical terms, PACCAR created considerable uncertainty for funded collective actions and required many funding arrangements to be restructured.

Last year, the Government had committed to legislate to mitigate the effect of PACCAR and to introduce proportionate regulation of litigation funding agreements when parliamentary time allows. In the meantime, it is relevant to the consultation because the Government is considering how the collective actions regime should operate going forward, including how claims are funded, certified and resolved. For businesses, this matters because any changes that make litigation funding more certain or easier to structure could affect the number, scale and settlement dynamics of future collective competition claims.

Regulatory appeals

Regulatory appeals are challenges to decisions made by sector regulators, including for example Ofcom, Ofgem etc. These appeals may concern matters such as price controls, licence conditions, access arrangements or other regulatory decisions affecting regulated businesses and, indirectly, their customers. At present, some appeals from sector regulators are heard by the CMA, whilst others are determined by the CAT or other appeal bodies; and the applicable legal tests, standing rules and costs rules differ between sectors.

The Government proposes to simplify this by transferring regulatory appeals currently heard by the CMA to the CAT, and by exploring whether appeal standards, standing requirements and costs rules should be made more consistent across sectors. For regulated businesses, this could affect not only where appeals are heard, but also the legal test applied, the evidence needed, the likely cost and timing of an appeal, and overall litigation strategy.

CMA investigations

The CMA is responsible for investigating suspected breaches of UK competition law, and these investigations are often complex and time-consuming. The consultation proposes a number of procedural reforms aimed at improving the speed and efficiency of the investigative process. While the substantive legal tests for establishing an infringement would remain unchanged, the proposals could have a significant impact on how investigations are conducted and the pace at which businesses are required to respond. The Government proposes to:

• change the CMA’s decision-making structure, allowing the senior officer who led the investigation to take part in the final infringement decision alongside two fresh decision-makers;

• speed up settlement procedures, including by removing the need for a formal statement of objections (ie a draft decision) before settlement and formalising, as part of the settlement process, the requirement for settling parties to waive their appeal rights;

• introduce a statutory framework for confidentiality rings, enabling the CMA to require confidentiality ring arrangements without needing the parties’ agreement, and to impose civil sanctions for breaches by individuals and their employers;

• streamline interim measures, including by removing the current requirement for the CMA to provide access to its file before imposing interim measures; and

• introduce an alternative penalty cap for holding companies, SPVs and certain joint ventures, by providing for a fixed penalty cap of up to £300,000 for entities with little or no turnover.

For businesses, these proposals reinforce the importance of being prepared for CMA investigations. This includes having robust internal processes for document preservation, information gathering, legal privilege review, confidentiality controls, and engagement with the CMA.

Overall, the reforms are procedural, but could materially affect litigation strategy, appeal planning and how businesses manage CMA investigations.

Key takeaways for businesses

Businesses do not need to take immediate operational steps, but should assess whether the proposals are relevant to their risk profile and whether they wish to respond to the consultation before it closes on 25 September 2026. The proposals will be particularly relevant for businesses exposed to collective competition claims, businesses operating in regulated sectors, and businesses that may be involved in CMA investigations.

For businesses exposed to collective actions, the proposals could alter the landscape for funding, certification, case management and settlement, as well as the relationship between private litigation and CMA enforcement. If implemented, the reforms may influence the economics, procedural framework and overall viability of future collective proceedings for both claimants and defendants.

Businesses operating in regulated sectors should assess whether the proposed transfer of certain appeals from the CMA to the CAT, together with measures aimed at greater consistency in appeal standards, standing requirements and costs rules, could have implications for future litigation and appeal strategies.

Businesses that may face CMA scrutiny should also review their internal investigation-response procedures to ensure they remain fit for purpose, including arrangements relating to document preservation, legal privilege, confidentiality, governance and decision-making processes, and engagement with the CMA.

Further reading on the proposed competition reforms

• CMA guidance issued on AI agent consumer compliance - April 28, 2026

• The CMA’s Big Bang: First Investigations Under New Consumer Law Powers - November 19, 2025

• Brace for Action: CMA to Start Enforcing New Consumer Law Powers - July 8, 2025