Swifter and Simpler: The UK Government’s latest Proposals for Competition Redress, Regulatory Appeals and Enforcement

On 17 July 2026, the Department for Business and Trade ("DBT") published a consultation on reforms to opt-out collective actions, regulatory appeals and enforcement under the Competition Act 1998 ("CA98"). The proposals are wide-ranging and build on the Government’s 2025 Call for Evidence on opt-out collective actions regime review. In parallel, the Solicitors Regulation Authority ("SRA") is currently consulting on proposals for solicitors who use or arrange third-party litigation funding. While that consultation is separate from the DBT consultation, the SRA’s proposals may affect funded collective proceedings.

As a reminder, opt-in claims are available in a range of cases, however, opt-out claims are only available in competition claims which are heard before the Competition Appeal Tribunal (the "CAT"). The Government has decided not to alter the opt-out regime at this stage. However, it has asked the Law Commission to consider the introduction of a consumer class actions regime.

The Government’s current consultation runs until 25 September 2026. Mayer Brown will be submitting a response. We summarise the main points in the consultation below.

Opt-outs and Redress

A higher bar to certify: The Government wants to replace the current relative suitability test with an absolute test. The CAT would need to decide whether a claim has sufficient prospects of success and is proportionate before it can proceed. The assessment would include a statutory cost/benefit analysis. Increased judicial scrutiny of claims at an early stage of proceedings should help protect businesses from unmeritorious claims that are nevertheless costly to litigate.

Damages Based Agreements permitted, but safeguards needed: The Government proposes to lift the prohibition on Damages Based Agreements. If it does so, judicial approval at certification, percentage caps and independence protections for the class representative will be needed to prevent an increase in marginal claims. The  relationship between the funder and proposed class representative is still unclear in too many cases, and the proposal for early disclosure of likely funder returns would help address that.

Leniency immunity from private claims: Type A leniency applications have fallen from an average of 21 per year in 2014–16 to eight per year in 2022–24. The Government proposes full immunity from civil litigation for first-in reporters. Exposure to mass follow-on claims can be a real deterrent and weakens cartel detection. We support an extension of immunity to all forms of private enforcement, including opt-out collective actions, opt-in proceedings and standalone claims. It should also cover the applicant’s current and former directors and employees.

ADR and settlement: The consultation proposes three separate mechanisms. First, the CAT could encourage or require mediation at appropriate stages, with costs consequences for unreasonable refusal. Secondly, Rule 45-style offers which would create automatic cost-shifting consequences if rejected. Thirdly, CMA-directed redress schemes or binding undertakings could provide compensation without litigation involving an expansion of the CMA’s role.

Regulatory Appeals

Transfer to the CAT and harmonised appeal standard: Regulatory appeals currently heard by the CMA, including water, energy, telecoms, aviation and postal appeals, would move to the CAT. The Government estimates that this would free CMA resources equivalent to 2–3 market studies per year. It also proposes a single appeal standard. The CAT would apply judicial review principles while taking “due account of the merits”, replacing the current sector-specific standards. The CAT would ask whether a regulator’s decision was materially wrong, rather than rehear the case in full, while retaining controlled powers to admit new evidence and cross-examine witnesses.

Water redeterminations: The Government proposes that water redeterminations would be replaced with a more focused appeal process. The Government notes that the exercise has grown from 63 pages in PR94 to over 1,000 pages in Ofwat’s 2024 price control. It argues that a narrower process would be faster, use fewer resources and give companies, investors and customers greater predictability.

Eligibility and CAT resourcing: The Government is also seeking views on whether the right to appeal should be harmonised across sectors. This could cover licence holders, materially affected parties and representative or consumer bodies, subject to CAT permission. Consolidation would provide a more harmonised process, but the CAT must have enough properly qualified panel members. Furthermore, price control appeals are not standard competition litigation. They involve cost of capital, regulatory asset bases and financeability assessments, and need specialist expertise.

CA98 Enforcement

The proposal to move the CMA’s decision-making model from the statutory CMA Rules into CMA guidance merits careful examination. As CA98 decisions can lead to penalties of up to 10% of global turnover, follow-on claims and potential director disqualification, the predictability that statutory rules provide should not be underestimated; particularly as guidance can be amended without parliamentary oversight. This proposal should be considered alongside the January 2026 consultation, “Refining Our Competition Regime”, which proposes changes to the CMA’s decision-making model in merger and market cases. If both reforms proceed, their interaction and transitional arrangements should be clear. Core CA98 procedural safeguards should not be left to guidance that may change without equivalent parliamentary control.

CAT filing fees: For the first time, the Government proposes application fees for private litigation before the CAT. Fees would be linked to the value of claims filed and subject to a cap, and parties would need to factor such costs in to litigation cost planning.

Waiver of appeal rights: The Government proposes requiring settling parties to agree not to challenge or appeal the infringement decision as a condition of settlement. This would put into legislation a condition already found in CMA guidance. It may improve efficiency, but a blanket waiver raises due process concerns given the admission of infringement, financial penalty, reputational consequences and exposure to follow-on claims. A limited route for challenging manifest error may be more proportionate.

Fixed penalty cap: The Government proposes a new fixed-amount cap of up to £300,000 for undertakings with no turnover or with turnover that is not representative. This is intended to close a perceived enforcement gap where the turnover-based cap would not work. The cap should be a maximum, not a default, and the CMA should retain discretion to account for ability to pay and proportionality.

Confidentiality rings: A prescribed framework for confidentiality rings is welcome. Civil sanctions for breaches should be calibrated to avoid double-counting for professionals already subject to regulatory obligations.

Competition Disqualification Orders: The proposals would allow a court to consider a person’s conduct as a director of an overseas company and would confirm that Competition Disqualification Orders can be made against former directors. Safeguards will be needed, including clear time limits on post-departure exposure.

What Comes Next?

The consultation closes 25 September 2026. Mayer Brown is preparing a response. To discuss how these proposals affect your business, or to feed into our response, please contact Ian McDonald, Sarah Garvey, Mark Hills, Chris Chapman or your usual Mayer Brown contact.