The CMA’s scrutiny of “drip pricing” and unfair contract terms in Ryanair investigation – practical implications for consumer facing businesses

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has launched an investigation into Ryanair’s family seating policy, focusing on whether parents are being unfairly charged to sit next to their children and whether those charges are presented transparently. This is a clear example of the regulator’s increasing focus on pricing transparency and consumer fairness, which are issues extending beyond the aviation sector.

The investigation centres on whether parents are effectively required to pay to sit with their children aged 2–11 (for other passengers, seat selection remains optional) and whether that charge is presented clearly upfront or only introduced later in the booking journey. The fee typically costs around £8 each way. While the sums involved may appear modest, the CMA’s investigation highlights two key risk areas for consumer-facing businesses: unfair contract terms and drip pricing.

Unfair contract terms: where the “choice” is illusory

The CMA is assessing whether Ryanair’s “mandatory family seat” policy could constitute an unfair term under the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

A term will be considered unfair where it places consumers at a significant disadvantage by skewing the balance of rights and obligations in favour of the business. If a term is found to be unfair, it will not be binding on consumers and may expose the business to enforcement action. In this case, the concern is that parents may effectively be required to pay for the airline to comply with its own safety and regulatory obligations. This goes directly to the fairness assessment: where customers have little practical choice but to accept a charge, the CMA is more likely to scrutinise whether the term is genuinely balanced and transparent.

The key takeaway for businesses is that terms which appear optional on paper may still be challenged if, in practice, customers have no realistic alternative. This risk is heightened where:

• A fee is linked to something consumers reasonably expect as part of the core service
• The business is effectively charging customers to meet its own legal or operational obligations, or
• The customer has little genuine choice but to accept the charge

Drip pricing: enforcement focus on the customer journey 

The CMA is also investigating whether the seating charge is introduced too late in the booking process, rather than being clearly included in the upfront price. “Drip pricing” occurs where a headline price is shown initially, with additional mandatory fees added later in the purchasing process. UK consumer law now requires businesses to present the total price upfront, including all unavoidable charges. The CMA has made clear that pricing transparency, and tackling drip pricing in particular, is a core enforcement priority under its enhanced powers. 

Why this matters beyond the aviation sector

Although this case focuses on airlines, the underlying issues are highly relevant across all consumer-facing sectors.

Businesses should be proactively reviewing:

• Pricing structure

  Are any additional fees effectively mandatory, even if labelled optional? Is the full price (including all unavoidable elements) visible early enough in the journey?

• Contract terms

  Do any provisions rely on customers having no realistic alternative? Could any charges be characterised as customers paying for the business to meet its own obligations?

• Customer experience 

  Are key charges introduced late in the process? Could the presentation of pricing be seen as nudging or distorting consumer choice?

If a charge is hard to avoid, or only becomes clear late in the purchasing journey, it is likely to attract regulatory scrutiny, particularly where it interacts with a perceived lack of consumer choice. With its strengthened powers, the CMA is increasingly willing to take enforcement action.