Unfair trading with consumers - an overview of UK rules and reforms under the DMCCA

Enforcement of UK consumer protection law

Significant reforms to the enforcement of UK consumer protection law contained in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) came into force on 6 April 2025. These include powers for the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) to directly enforce breaches of a range of UK consumer protection laws, and the possibility of fines of up to 10% of group global turnover for breaches. Against this background, it is likely to be a priority for consumer-facing businesses to familiarise themselves with the application of the underlying law to their existing and proposed commercial practices to minimise risk. 

Scope of enforcement regime

In this article we focus on key considerations for businesses in complying with the DMCCA’s provisions on protection from unfair trading, which are of general relevance to consumer-facing businesses. These replace the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPUT), although the scope of what constitutes a prohibited trading practice is substantially the same as under CPUT. It should be noted however that the new enforcement regime additionally applies to a wide range of existing UK consumer protection law which will remain in place including those:

• Which are of general relevance such as certain parts of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 and the Sale of Goods Act 1979;
• Which apply generally to a particular sales channel such as The Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000; and
• Which apply to particular products/sectors such as the Package Travel and Linked Travel Arrangement Regulations 2018. 

What is an unfair commercial practice?

The CMA has set out updated guidance on what constitutes an unfair commercial practice (Unfair commercial practices: CMA207 - GOV.UK). Broadly:

1. There are certain practices that are always unfair; and
2. There are certain practices that are unfair depending on the context. 

Practices that are always unfair

There is a list of 32 specified practices that are always considered unfair. Many of these practices – such as operating a pyramid scheme or offering a competition without awarding the prizes described – are self-evidentially unfair and would not be carried out by a reputable business. However, businesses should pay attention to certain practices that are likely to be

considered automatically unfair which may be less obvious or could be carried out inadvertently. These include:

• Displaying a trust mark or similar for a product where certification to use that mark in respect of a product has lapsed.
• Advertising a product at a particular price without having sufficient stock to meet demand at that price.
• Stating that a product or price will only be available for a limited time and then taking a decision to extend availability of that product or price (even if there was no original intention to state the limited availability as a "pressure tactic").
• Mistakenly communicating the geographic availability of a product (e.g. stating that a product can be delivered anywhere in the UK if delivery cannot be arranged to certain islands or Northern Ireland).
• Presenting consumer’s statutory rights as a "special feature" of the product. 
• Not sufficiently disclosing the advertorial nature of content online, e.g. when using influencers to promote a product. 
• For cosmetic and other "borderline" medicinal products, making medicinal claims in respect of a product such as their ability to prevent or treat a disease. 

Fake and paid-for reviews

Businesses should in particular be aware that the DMCCA introduces a new automatically unfair practice of submitting, commissioning or, in certain circumstances, publishing fake or undisclosed "paid-for" reviews. This prohibition is particularly relevant to platforms, online marketplaces and other intermediaries who are now under a duty to take reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent and remove fake reviews and undisclosed "paid-for" reviews.

Failure to provide material information

In addition to the list of specified practices that are always considered unfair, it is also in general an unfair commercial practice to omit material information when offering (including advertising) products to consumers. Ideally, consumers should be provided with a list of specified information, including the main characteristics and total price of the product and certain information on the seller, when they are offered products, although the DMCCA recognises that this may not always be feasible – and therefore a strict requirement – in certain circumstances. 

Drip-pricing practices

CMA guidance does however indicate that a key factor for businesses to ensure compliance with the requirement not to omit material information is to avoid "drip-pricing" practices, and that these are likely to be an enforcement priority. This requires businesses to ensure that when the price of a product is first communicated to consumers this is the total price that will be paid by the consumer if they purchase the product, inclusive of all mandatory additional elements such as fees and taxes. If these are variable then information on how they will be calculated should be provided. 

Practices that are unfair depending on the context

Any of the following will continue to be prohibited if they cause an average consumer to take a transactional decision that they would not otherwise have taken (a transactional decision is a wide concept that includes e.g. viewing or requesting further information about a product in addition to purchasing it):

• Misleading actions, including making false claims in respect of a product or claims that are misleading because they do not provide adequate context.
• Misleading omissions, including failure to provide material informational about a product to a consumer.
• Aggressive practices, e.g. threatening to take action which cannot legally be taken if a consumer refuses to pay for or purchase a product, or generally using threatening or abusive language or behaviour.
• "Contravening the requirements of professional diligence", e.g. potentially failing to have appropriate complaint systems in place, or a platform failing to adequately monitor the actions of third parties listing on their platform.

Vulnerable customers

Where a business is likely to be interacting with vulnerable consumers, they are effectively placed under a higher duty to avoid the potentially unfair practices set out above. 

The concept of relevant vulnerabilities has been expanded by the DMCCA. Mental or physical infirmity, (young or old) age or credulity will continue to be relevant vulnerabilities. In addition, "personal circumstances" can now also constitute a relevant vulnerability. Whilst what constitutes personal circumstances that are a vulnerability is not clear-cut, the implication from CMA guidance is that businesses which sell products that are related to difficult circumstances that people may find themselves in, such as loan, funeral and divorce services, are now likely to be under a higher duty to avoid the potentially unfair practices set out above.

Key takeaways

In general, given the higher stakes involved in compliance with UK consumer protection law, and in particular avoiding unfair commercial practices, businesses may wish to review existing consumer dealing procedures, and take legal compliance into careful consideration before implementing new ones. 

Key considerations are likely to be:

• Taking steps to prevent fake or undisclosed "paid-for" reviews – this will be of particular relevance for consumer platforms.
• Ensuring claims made in respect of products are objectively verifiable and given their appropriate context when communicated to consumers.
• Ensuring that all advertising material is identifiable as such.
• Taking care over price promotions, particularly where they are expressed to be for a limited time or “whilst stocks last”. 
• Taking care over how the price of a product is presented to consumers where it is composed of various elements. 
• Assessing whether any consumers are likely to be in a vulnerable position, and considering whether to put in place additional safeguards for them.