Tag: CMA

Watchdog identifies ‘multiple concerns’ in veterinary industry

The CMA has today published its main concerns following an initial review into the veterinary sector

  • CMA provisionally decides it should launch a formal Market Investigation.
  • Initial review prompts over 56,000 responses from public and vet industry.

The review by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) highlights multiple concerns in the market, including:

  • Consumers may not be given enough information to enable them to choose the best veterinary practice or the right treatment for their needs.
  • Concentrated local markets, in part driven by sector consolidation, may be leading to weak competition in some areas.
  • Large corporate groups may have incentives to act in ways which reduce choice and weaken competition.
  • Pet owners might be overpaying for medicines or prescriptions.
  • The regulatory framework is outdated and may no longer be fit for purpose.

The CMA has provisionally decided that it should launch a formal Market Investigation focused on its provisional analysis of the issues in the sector and is now consulting on this proposal.  

A Market Investigation enables the CMA to investigate its concerns in full and to intervene directly in markets if it finds that competition is not working well. Along with compelling those under investigation to provide information, it gives the CMA access to a wide range of legally enforceable remedies, such as mandating the provision of certain information to consumers, imposing maximum prescription fees and ordering the sale or disposal of a business or assets.

Sarah Cardell, Chief Executive of the CMA, said: “We launched our review of the veterinary sector last September because this is a critical market for the UK’s 16 million pet owners. The unprecedented response we received from the public and veterinary professionals shows the strength of feeling on this issue is high and why we were right to look into this.

“We have heard concerns from those working in the sector about the pressures they face, including acute staff shortages, and the impact this has on individual professionals. But our review has identified multiple concerns with the market that we think should be investigated further.

“These include pet owners finding it difficult to access basic information like price lists and prescription costs – and potentially overpaying for medicines. We are also concerned about weak competition in some areas, driven in part by sector consolidation, and the incentives for large corporate groups to act in ways which may reduce competition and choice.

“Given these strong indications of potential concern, it is time to put our work on a formal footing. We have provisionally decided to launch a market investigation because that’s the quickest route to enable us to take direct action, if needed.”

The CMA’s concerns

Based on the evidence gathered so far, the CMA has 5 key concerns that it proposes to investigate further:

Consumers may not be given enough information to enable them to choose the best veterinary practice or the right treatment for their needs.

  • Most vet practices do not display prices on their website – of those practices checked, over 80% had no pricing information online, even for the most basic services. Pet owners tend not to shop around between vet practices and assume prices will be similar, although that is not always the case.
  • People are not always informed of the cost of treatment before agreeing to it – around one fifth of respondents to the  CFI said that they were not provided with any cost information before agreeing to tests, around one in 10 said they were not provided with cost information before their pet had surgery, and around half said they were not informed about costs before agreeing to out of hours treatment.
  • A company can own multiple vet practices in a local area without making that clear – for example, only 4 out of 6 of the largest groups don’t change the name or branding when they take over an independently owned vet practice. This means pet owners are not always comparing competitors when choosing a vet practice.

Concentrated local markets, in part driven by sector consolidation, may be leading to weak competition in some areas.

Market concentration measures how many competitors operate in a particular market – the fewer firms operating in a market, the more concentrated it is.

  • In 2013, around 10% of vet practices belonged to large groups, but that share is now almost 60%, and many of the large groups have expressed an intention to continue expanding their business through acquisition of independently owned practices.
  • To illustrate this another way, since 2013 1,500 of the 5,000 vet practices in the UK have been acquired by the 6 large corporate groups (CVS, IVC, Linnaeus, Medivet, Pets at Home and VetPartners).
  • This may reduce the number of business models in locations where most or all of the first opinion practices are owned by one large corporate group, giving less choice to consumers because they tend to choose practices close to home.

Large integrated groups may have incentives to act in ways which reduce choice and weaken competition.

Given the significant and ongoing growth of large corporate groups, the CMA is concerned that:

  • The large, integrated corporate groups (especially those whose business models include significant investment in advanced equipment) may concentrate on providing more sophisticated, higher cost treatments, meaning that consumers are less able to access simpler, lower cost treatments even if they would prefer that option.
  • To varying extents, the large vet groups have also bought businesses which offer related services such as specialised referral centres, out of hours care, diagnostic labs and/or crematoria. These large groups may have the incentive and ability to keep provision of these related services within the group, potentially leading to reduced choice, higher prices, lower quality and exit of independent competitors.

Pet owners might be overpaying for medicines or prescriptions.

  • Vets must use signs in reception or treatment rooms to tell customers that they can get a prescription for medicine and buy it elsewhere, but the CMA is concerned that these may not be effective. While it can be convenient to buy a medicine directly from the vet as part of a consultation, around 25% of pet owners did not know that getting a prescription filled elsewhere was an option – meaning they are missing out on potential savings, even with the prescription fee.
  • Some vet practices may make up to a quarter of their income selling medicines – so there may be little incentive to make pet owners aware of alternatives.
  • The current regulatory regime may contribute to concerns by restricting veterinary practices’ ability to source cheaper medicines online.

The regulatory framework is outdated and may no longer be fit for purpose.

  • The main regulation in the industry dates from 1966, before non-vets were able to own vet practices. It relates to individual practitioners, not practice owners or vet practices as businesses. This means that the statutory regulator, the RCVS, has limited leverage over the commercial and consumer-facing aspects of veterinary businesses, for example how prices are communicated or whether there is transparency about ownership of vet practices or related services.
  • The RCVS has put in place a Practice Standards Scheme which applies to the vet practice rather than individual vets. Only 69% of eligible practices have signed up to this voluntary scheme, meaning that almost a third of the market has not committed to this approach.
  • The provisional view is that outcomes for consumers could be improved if regulatory requirements and/or elements of best practice could be monitored or enforced more effectively.

Next steps

The CMA has launched a 4-week consultation to seek views from the sector on the proposal to launch a market investigation. The consultation closes on 11 April 2023 at which point it will consider the responses received and a decision will be made on how to proceed.

For further information visit the veterinary services case page. This includes the consultation document which sets out more details and statistics on today’s update.

A response from the British Veterinary Association to follow

Music streaming report published

The CMA has concluded its independent study into the music streaming market

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has published its final report and found that consumers have benefited from digitisation and competition between music streaming services.

Prices for consumers have fallen by more than 20% in real terms between 2009 and 2021 – with many services also offering music streaming for free with ads.

The study found that there were around 39 million monthly listeners in the UK, streaming 138 billion times a year.

The CMA also heard concerns from creators – artists and songwriters – about how much they earn from streaming. With an increasing number of artists, tracks and streams, the money from streaming is shared more widely – with those that have the highest number of streams earning the most. The CMA found that over 60% of streams were of music recorded by only the top 0.4% of artists.

The CMA found that the concerns raised by artists are not being driven by the level of concentration of the recording market. Analysis found that neither record labels nor streaming services are likely to be making significant excess profits that could be shared with creators.

Consequently, the issues concerning creators would not be addressed by measures intended to improve competition, but instead would need other policy measures in order to be addressed.

Digitisation has led to a major increase in the amount of music people have access to and to large increases in the number of artists releasing music (up from 200,000 in 2014 to 400,000 in 2020) partly by opening up new direct routes to listeners.

This has also meant that there is greater competition to reach listeners and for the associated streaming revenues. The study found that an artist could expect to earn around £12,000 from 12 million streams in the UK in 2021, but less than 1% of artists achieve that level of streams.

Some parts of the streaming market have improved for some creators in recent years, with the CMA finding a greater choice of deals with record labels available. Whilst individual deals can vary considerably, the report highlighted on average royalty rates in major deals with artists have increased steadily from 19.7% in 2012 to 23.3% in 2021. For songwriters, the share of revenues going to publishing rights has increased significantly from 8% in 2008 to 15% in 2021.

While the CMA understands the concerns from creators about the level of income many receive, the analysis in the study suggests it is unlikely that an intervention by the CMA would release additional money into the system to pay creators more.

The study does however highlight that the issues raised by creators could be further considered by government and policymakers as part of their ongoing work following the DCMS Select Committee’s inquiry into the economics of music streaming.

Sarah Cardell, Interim CEO of the CMA, said: “Streaming has transformed how music fans access vast catalogues of music, providing a valuable platform for artists to reach new listeners quickly, and at a price for consumers that has declined in real terms over the years.

“However, we heard from many artists and songwriters across the UK about how they struggle to make a decent living from these services. These are understandable concerns, but our findings show that these are not the result of ineffective competition – and intervention by the CMA would not release more money into the system that would help artists or songwriters.

“While this report marks the end of the CMA’s market study, which addresses the concerns previously posed about competition, we also hope the detailed and evidence-based picture we have been able to build of this relatively new sector will provide a basis that can be used by policymakers to consider whether additional action is needed to help creators.”

Music_and_streaming_final_report_executive_summaryDownload

All together now: Firms fined for fixing prices of Rangers merchandise

The CMA has imposed fines totalling over £2 million on Elite Sports, JD Sports and Rangers FC after they admitted to fixing the prices of certain Rangers FC merchandise

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has found that Elite Sports and JD Sports broke competition law by fixing the retail prices of a number of Rangers-branded replica kits and other clothing products from September 2018 until July 2019.

Rangers FC also took part in the collusion but only to the extent of fixing the retail price of adult home short-sleeved replica shirts from September 2018 to mid-November 2018. All three firms colluded to stop JD Sports undercutting the retail price of the shirt on Elite’s Gers Online store.

Elite Sports has been fined £459,000, JD Sports £1,485,000 and Rangers £225,000. The penalties include a settlement discount, reflecting resource savings to the CMA as a result of all 3 parties admitting to acting illegally and helping bring a swifter resolution to the CMA’s investigation.

Elite Sports’ and JD Sports’ penalties also include a discount for coming forward with information about their participation in the illegal conduct and cooperating with the investigation under the CMA’s Leniency Programme.

Michael Grenfell, Executive Director of Enforcement at the CMA, said: “At a time when many people are worried about the rising cost of living, it is important that football fans are able to benefit from competitively priced merchandise. Instead, Elite, JD Sports and, to some extent, Rangers, worked together to keep prices high.

“Today’s decision sends a clear message to football clubs and other businesses that illegal anti-competitive collusion will not be tolerated.”

During the time of the infringement, Elite was the manufacturer of Rangers-branded clothing and also sold Rangers-branded products directly through its Gers Online store and later in bricks-and-mortar shops in Glasgow and Belfast. The only UK-wide major retailer selling those products at the time was JD Sports.

The CMA’s investigation found that Rangers FC became concerned about the fact that, at the start of the 2018 to 2019 football season, JD Sports was selling the Rangers replica top at a lower price than Elite, which was seen at the time as the club’s ‘retail partner’.

This resulted in an understanding between the 3 parties that JD Sports would increase its retail price of the Rangers adult short-sleeved home replica shirt by nearly 10%, from £55 to £60, to bring it in line with the prices being charged by Elite on Gers Online.

The CMA also found that Elite and JD Sports – without involvement from Rangers – colluded to fix the retail prices of Rangers-branded clothing, including training wear and replica kit, over a longer period. This included aligning the level and timing of discounts towards the end of the football season in 2019, to avoid competition between them and protect their profit margins.

More information can be found on the case page: Suspected anti-competitive behaviour in relation to the pricing of Rangers FC-branded replica football kit.

Rangers ‘provisionally guilty’ of merchandise price-fixing

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has provisionally found that Elite Sports, JD Sports and Rangers Football Club broke competition law by fixing the retail prices of certain Rangers-branded clothing products.

If confirmed, the companies involved can expect to face fines.

The provisional findings are:

  • Elite Sports and JD Sports fixed the retail prices of a number of Rangers-branded replica kits and other clothing products from September 2018 until at least July 2019.
  • Rangers FC also took part in the alleged collusion but only to the extent of fixing the retail price of adult home short-sleeved replica shirts from September 2018 to at least mid-November 2018. All 3 parties allegedly colluded to stop JD Sports undercutting the retail price of the shirt on Elite’s Gers Online store.

At the time, Elite was the manufacturer of Rangers-branded clothing and also sold Rangers-branded products directly through Gers Online Store and later in bricks-and-mortar shops in Glasgow and Belfast. The only UK-wide major retailer selling those products at the time was JD Sports.

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) alleges that Rangers FC became concerned about the fact that, at the start of the 2018-19 football season, JD Sports was selling the Rangers replica top at a lower price than Elite, which was seen at the time as the club’s ‘retail partner’.

This resulted in an understanding between the 3 parties that JD Sports would increase its retail price of the Rangers adult short-sleeved home replica shirt by nearly 10%, from £55 to £60, to bring it in line with the prices being charged by Elite on Gers Online.

The CMA is also concerned that Elite and JD Sports – without involvement from Rangers –colluded to fix the retail prices of Rangers-branded clothing, including training wear and replica kit, over a longer period.

This included aligning the level and timing of discounts towards the end of the football season in 2019, to avoid competition between them and protect their profit margins at the expense of fans.

Elite and JD Sports applied for leniency during the CMA’s investigation and confessed to cartel activity. Provided they continue to cooperate with the investigation, each will receive a reduction on any financial penalties the CMA may decide to impose. Any business found to have infringed the prohibitions in the Competition Act 1998 can be fined up to 10% of its annual worldwide group turnover.

Michael Grenfell, Executive Director of Enforcement at the CMA, said: “We don’t hesitate to take action when we have concerns that companies may be working together to keep costs up.

“Football fans are well-known for their loyalty towards their teams. We are concerned that, in this case, Elite, JD Sports and, to some extent, Rangers, may have colluded to keep prices high, so that the 2 retailers could pocket more money for themselves at the expense of fans.”

These are the CMA’s provisional findings and the companies involved now have the chance to make representations to the CMA before it reaches a final decision.

More information can be found on the case page: 

Suspected anti-competitive behaviour in relation to the pricing of Rangers FC-branded replica football kit.

CMA to investigate Amazon and Google over fake reviews

The CMA has opened a formal probe into Amazon and Google over concerns that they have not been doing enough to combat fake reviews on their sites.

In this next phase of the work, the Competititon and Markets Authority (CMA) will gather further information to determine whether these two firms may have broken consumer law by taking insufficient action to protect shoppers from fake reviews.

The move comes after an initial CMA investigation, which opened in May 2020, and assessed several platforms’ internal systems and processes for identifying and dealing with fake reviews.

This work has raised specific concerns such as whether Amazon and Google have been doing enough to:

  • Detect fake and misleading reviews or suspicious patterns of behaviour. For example, where the same users have reviewed the same range of products or businesses at similar times to each other and there is no connection between those products or businesses – or where the review suggests that the reviewer has received a payment or other incentive to write a positive review.
  • Investigate and, where necessary, remove promptly fake and misleading reviews from their platforms.
  • Impose adequate sanctions on reviewers or businesses to deter them and others from posting fake or misleading reviews on their platforms – including those who have published these types of reviews many times.

The CMA is also concerned that Amazon’s systems have been failing adequately to prevent and deter some sellers from manipulating product listings – for example, by co-opting positive reviews from other products.

Fake and misleading reviews have the potential to impact on businesses’ star ratings and how prominently companies and products are displayed to consumers, changing their whole shopping experience.

Andrea Coscelli, the CMA’s Chief Executive, said: “Our worry is that millions of online shoppers could be misled by reading fake reviews and then spending their money based on those recommendations. Equally, it’s simply not fair if some businesses can fake 5-star reviews to give their products or services the most prominence, while law-abiding businesses lose out.

“We are investigating concerns that Amazon and Google have not been doing enough to prevent or remove fake reviews to protect customers and honest businesses. It’s important that these tech platforms take responsibility and we stand ready to take action if we find that they are not doing enough.”

If, after investigating, the CMA considers the firms have broken consumer protection law, it can take enforcement action. This could include securing formal commitments from the firms to change the way they deal with fake reviews or escalating to court action if needed. However, the CMA has not reached a view on whether Amazon and Google have broken the law at this stage.

This latest work builds on action taken by the CMA last year over the trading of fake reviews, which resulted in Facebook, Instagram and eBay removing groups and banning individuals for buying and selling fake reviews on their sites.

The CMA’s investigation into fake reviews is part of a broader programme of CMA work, which includes establishing a new pro-competition regulatory regime for digital markets, to curb the power of big tech. This will be achieved through the Digital Markets Unit. As the CMA works with the Government on proposals, it will continue to use its existing powers to their fullest extent in order to examine and protect competition in these areas.

Rocio Concha, Which? Director of Policy and Advocacy, said: “We have repeatedly exposed fake reviews on websites including Amazon and Google, so this investigation is a positive step. The CMA must now move swiftly towards establishing whether these companies have broken the law.

“This should prompt Amazon and Google to finally take the necessary steps to protect users from the growing tide of fake reviews on their platforms and, if they fail to do so, the regulator must be prepared to take strong enforcement action.

“The government must also give online platforms greater legal responsibility for tackling fake and fraudulent content on their sites – including fake and misleading review activity.”

More information about the CMA’s probe into Amazon and Google can be found on the Online Reviews case page.

Teletext faces court action unless it pays over £7m in refunds

Teletext Holidays will face legal action unless it repays over £7 million to customers whose package holidays were cancelled due to the coronavirus (COVID-19) pandemic.

On 4 February, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced that it was opening an investigation into Teletext Holidays after receiving hundreds of complaints.

These showed that people were not receiving refunds they were owed within 14 days, as required by law, for package holidays cancelled by the company due to pandemic restrictions.

The CMA wrote to Truly Holdings Ltd., the company that operates Teletext Holidays and also AlphaRooms.com, in March, setting out in detail its concerns and giving the company an opportunity to address them.

The CMA told the firm it could avoid any potential court action by signing formal commitments – known as ‘undertakings’ – to refund affected consumers and ensure compliance with the Package Travel Regulations going forward.

However, Teletext has not agreed to provide undertakings that are sufficient to address the CMA’s concerns.

The CMA has now informed Teletext Holidays that it is preparing to take court action and will launch proceedings if it does not repay the outstanding refunds, or commit to do so, without unnecessary delay.

Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the CMA, said: There must be no more delays to Teletext refunding customers for holidays they could not take because of the pandemic. It is unacceptable that many have already waited months for the refunds they are legally entitled to.

“We take very seriously the ongoing failure of Teletext Holidays to meet its obligations. The firm must now comply with the law and commit to refunding its customers. If it does not do so, we will not hesitate to pursue this case in court.”

Rory Boland, Which? Travel Editor, said: “We have received countless complaints from Teletext Holidays customers who have been battling for refunds for cancelled holidays for more than a year, so while the regulator’s action is welcome customers will be angry that they still don’t have money they are legally due.

“Teletext is one of many holiday providers that have attempted to shirk their legal responsibilities to refund customers for cancelled trips, highlighting the need for industry-wide reform.

“The government must ensure there are better protections for holidaymakers’ money, while the Civil Aviation Authority – which has been unable to take much meaningful action against airlines holding up the refund process by withholding money from holiday companies – must be given stronger powers.”

The announcement follows ‘significant action’ by the CMA in relation to holiday cancellations during the coronavirus pandemic.

The CMA has written to over 100 package holiday firms to remind them of their obligations to comply with consumer protection law, and has already secured refund commitments from LoveHolidays, Lastminute.com, Virgin Holidays, and TUI UK.

Further information on this case can be found on the COVID-19 cancellations: package holidays web page.

CMA intervention leads to further Facebook action on fake reviews

  • Facebook to make it harder for people to find groups and profiles that buy and sell fake reviews
  • 16,000 trading groups removed with suspensions or bans for users who create these groups
  • it comes after CMA investigation found more evidence of misleading content

This latest action by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) follows reports that fake and misleading reviews continued to be bought and sold on the social media platforms.

In January 2020, Facebook committed to better identify, investigate and remove groups and other pages where fake and misleading reviews were being traded, and prevent them from reappearing.

Facebook gave a similar pledge in relation to its Instagram.com business in May 2020, after the CMA had identified similar concerns.

A follow-up investigation found evidence that the illegal trade in fake reviews was still taking place on both Facebook and Instagram and the CMA intervened for a second time.

Facebook has now removed a further 16,000 groups that were dealing in fake and misleading reviews. It has also made further changes to its systems for identifying, removing and preventing such content on its social media platforms to ensure it is fulfilling its previous commitments.

These include:

  • suspending or banning users who are repeatedly creating Facebook groups and Instagram profiles that promote, encourage or facilitate fake and misleading reviews
  • introducing new automated processes that will improve the detection and removal of this content
  • making it harder for people to use Facebook’s search tools to find fake and misleading review groups and profiles on Facebook and Instagram
  • putting in place dedicated processes to make sure that these changes continue to work effectively and stop the problems from reappearing

Andrea Coscelli, Chief Executive of the CMA, said: “Never before has online shopping been so important. The pandemic has meant that more and more people are buying online, and millions of us read reviews to enable us to make informed choices when we shop around.

“That’s why fake and misleading reviews are so damaging – if people lose trust in online reviews, they are less able to shop around with confidence, and will miss out on the best deals. It also means that businesses playing by the rules miss out.

“Facebook has a duty to do all it can to stop the trading of such content on its platforms. After we intervened again, the company made significant changes – but it is disappointing it has taken them over a year to fix these issues.

“We will continue to keep a close eye on Facebook, including its Instagram business. Should we find it is failing to honour its commitments, we will not hesitate to take further action.”

This move follows the UK Government’s announcement that a dedicated Digital Markets Unit (DMU) will be set up within the CMA from April 2021.

Once the necessary legislation is in place, this will introduce and enforce a new code for governing the behaviour of platforms that currently dominate the market. As part of this process, the CMA has been advising government on the design and implementation of a pro-competition regime for digital markets.

Rocio Concha, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Which?, said: “We’ve previously raised the alarm about fake review factories continuing to operate at scale on Facebook, leaving online shoppers at huge risk of being misled. The tech giant failed to meet its earlier commitment to the CMA, so it is positive that the regulator has stepped in and demanded more robust action.

“Facebook must deliver this time round – it has shown it has the sophisticated technology to eradicate these misleading review groups and needs to do so much more swiftly and effectively.

“The CMA and Facebook now need to monitor the situation and if the problems persist the regulator must take stronger measures to ensure that trust in online reviews does not continue to be undermined.

“Online platforms should also have greater legal responsibility for tackling fake and fraudulent content and activity on their sites.”

For more information on the CMA’s fake reviews work, please see the dedicated webpage: Fake and misleading online reviews trading.

Meerkat misery: big fine for ComparetheMarket

The CMA has fined ComparetheMarket £17.9 million after it found that clauses used in the company’s contracts with home insurers breached competition law.

An investigation by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has concluded that, between December 2015 and December 2017, the price comparison website ComparetheMarket breached competition law by imposing wide ‘most favoured nation’ clauses on providers of home insurance selling through its platform.

These clauses prohibited the home insurers from offering lower prices on other comparison websites and protected ComparetheMarket from being undercut elsewhere. They also made it harder for ComparetheMarket’s rivals to expand and challenge the company’s already strong market position as other price comparison websites were restricted from beating it on price.

As a result, competition between price comparison websites, and between home insurers selling through these platforms, was restricted. The CMA found that this is likely to have resulted in higher insurance premiums.

ComparetheMarket’s clauses meant:

  • The insurers bound by the contracts were prohibited from offering cheaper deals on other price comparison websites. In turn, this limited competitive pressures on all home insurers competing on price comparison websites.
  • Rival comparison sites were restricted in gaining a price advantage over ComparetheMarket, for example, by lowering their commission fees to encourage those insurers to quote lower prices on their platforms.
  • The competitive pressures ComparetheMarket itself was subject to were weakened. Without the clauses, it would have had to compete harder to get lower prices from the home insurers, for example by reducing the commission fees it charged.

Michael Grenfell, the CMA’s Executive Director for Enforcement, said: “Price comparison websites are excellent for consumers. They promote competition between providers, offer choice for customers, and make it easier for consumers to find the best bargains.

“It is therefore unacceptable that ComparetheMarket, which has been the largest price comparison site for home insurance for several years, used clauses in its contracts that restricted home insurers from offering bigger discounts on competing websites – so limiting the bargains potentially available to consumers.

“Digital markets can yield great benefits for competition, and therefore for consumers. We are determined to secure those benefits, and to ensure that competition is not illegitimately restricted. Today’s action should come as a warning – when we find evidence that the law has been broken, we will not hesitate to step in and protect consumers.”

Further information on this investigation can be found on the case page.

Rocio Concha, Director of Policy and Advocacy at Which?, said: “The actions of ComparetheMarket have fallen well below the standard you’d expect from a company who claims to be working in the best interest of consumers, so it is positive to see the CMA intervening to protect consumers and issuing this large fine.  

“Customers should be able to trust that they can find the best deals when using price comparison sites, and any business found to be flouting the rules should be held to account.”

Sainsbury’s – Asda merger deal blocked by regulator

The Competition and Markets Authority has blocked the £14 billion Sainsbury’s – Asda merger after finding it would lead to increased prices in stores, online and at many petrol stations across the UK. Sainsbury’s say the regulator’s rebuff will take £1 billion in savings from customers’ pockets.  Continue reading Sainsbury’s – Asda merger deal blocked by regulator