CMA markets remedies review: 23 removals and what replaces them
In short: the CMA markets remedies review covers 33 market investigation remedies made between 1987 and 2017. On 12 August 2026 the Competition and Markets Authority provisionally decided to remove 23 in full, remove 4 in part and retain 6. Representations close at 5pm on 11 September 2026, with a final decision expected in October 2026.
A business bound by a competition remedy dating from the 1990s may be released from it before the end of 2026. The Competition and Markets Authority has provisionally decided to remove most of a batch of 33 market investigation remedies, several of them older than the Competition Act 1998. A firm on the list needs to know what now governs the conduct its remedy controlled, and the CMA gives that answer remedy by remedy in its provisional decision. On the removals most likely to matter to a regulated firm, the regime taking over does not necessarily replicate what is removed.
Proposals (CMA provisional decision, 12 August 2026)
- The review covers 33 remedies made between 1987 and 2017 under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or the Enterprise Act 2002, following market investigations by the CMA or its predecessors, the Competition Commission, the Monopolies and Mergers Commission and the Office of Fair Trading. Source: CMA, Provisional decision, 12 August 2026, paragraph 1.2.
- The provisional outcome is 23 remedies removed in full, 4 removed in part and 6 retained in full. Source: Provisional decision, Tables 1 and 2.
- Those 33 account for 60 per cent of all CMA market remedies in place. Source: CMA press release, 12 August 2026.
- The CMA received 52 responses to the launch consultation, which closed on 2 March 2026, and further information from the Civil Aviation Authority, the Financial Conduct Authority and Ofcom among others. Source: Provisional decision, paragraph 1.5.
- Representations on the provisional decision are due by 5pm on 11 September 2026, and the CMA expects to reach its final decision in October 2026. Source: Provisional decision, paragraph 5, and the case timetable.
| Enabling statute | Remove in full | Remove in part | Retain in full |
|---|---|---|---|
| Fair Trading Act 1973 | 14 | 1 | 2 |
| Enterprise Act 2002 | 9 | 3 | 4 |
| Total | 23 | 4 | 6 |
The CMA duty to keep remedies under review
A market remedy is an order the CMA imposes, or an undertaking it accepts, to correct a competition problem it has found at the end of a market investigation. An order can bind any participant in the market it covers; an undertaking binds only the party that gave it. The CMA must keep both under review. Section 162(1) and (2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 requires the CMA to keep under review the carrying out of every enforcement undertaking and enforcement order, and to consider from time to time whether, by reason of any change of circumstances, a remedy is no longer appropriate and the parties can be released from it or it can be varied or revoked. Sections 88(4) and (5) of the Fair Trading Act 1973 carry the same duty for the older remedies. Those sections were repealed in 2003 and 2004, but Schedule 24 to the Enterprise Act 2002 preserves them, and paragraphs 16 and 17 of that Schedule give the CMA the power to release the old undertakings and revoke the old orders, through a group the chair of the CMA constitutes for the purpose.
Schedule 10 to the Enterprise Act 2002 sets the procedure: before it releases an undertaking or revokes an order, the CMA must publish a notice of what it proposes and why, and must consider the representations it receives. The minimum period for representations is 15 days for an undertaking and 30 days for an order. The CMA published its notices on 12 August 2026 and has allowed 30 days for both. The CMA may review a batch of remedies together in a single strategic review under its markets regime guidance (CMA3).
What “no longer appropriate” means in practice
A change of circumstances is the whole test, and in its January 2026 launch consultation the CMA identified four kinds: market developments, such as entry by competitors or a change in how consumers buy; the age of the remedy and the loss of impact that goes with it; changes in regulation, where another regime now addresses the original problem; and changes to the businesses bound, including their exit from the market.
Only a change in regulation amounts to a handover, and on at least five separate removals the CMA or the Financial Conduct Authority says in terms that the successor framework does not replicate the requirement being removed.
On the Payday Lending Market Investigation Order 2015, the FCA told the CMA that its Consumer Duty “does not replicate the requirements in the Order to provide customers with a summary of borrowing costs or to publish product details on a PCW”, but that it does require firms to monitor whether their communications support customer understanding. The CMA has provisionally decided to remove the Order.
| Remedy | What the CMA relied on | Whether the successor replicates the requirement | Provisional outcome |
|---|---|---|---|
| Store Card Market Investigation Order 2006 | The FCA Consumer Duty and the measures following the FCA high-cost credit review | No. The FCA said the measures, “while not replicating the Order”, help consumers avoid some of the risks | Remove |
| Payday Lending Market Investigation Order 2015 | The FCA price cap, affordability rules and the Consumer Duty | No. The Consumer Duty “does not replicate the requirements in the Order” on cost summaries and PCW listings | Remove |
| Statutory Audit Services Order 2014 | Mandatory tendering under the Companies Act 2006, the UK Corporate Governance Code 2024 and FRC monitoring | Largely. The CMA received evidence that the key requirements are now duplicated by mandatory tendering under the Companies Act 2006, though it noted the Code’s recommendation “is not duplicative of the requirements of the Order” | Remove |
| Supply of New Cars Order 2000 | The Competition Act 1998 and the Vertical Agreements Block Exemption Order 2022 | No. “The current regulatory framework does not replicate the specific restrictions imposed by the Order” | Remove |
| Retail Banking Market Investigation Order 2017, Part 5 | Subject access requests and other regulatory developments | No. “The regulatory developments do not replicate the obligations in Part 5 of the Order” | Retain |
Non-replication decides nothing either way. The CMA gives the same finding as a reason to keep Part 5 of the Retail Banking Market Investigation Order 2017, where it places weight on the FCA’s view that removal might deter some customers from switching accounts. What decides it is whether the CMA is satisfied that the protection left in place is sufficient, taking the outcomes-based regime and the state of the market together. Where nothing regulatory replaces it, as on the Supply of New Cars Order 2000, what is left is the Competition Act 1998 prohibitions and the CMA’s guidance on vertical agreements and resale price maintenance.
Removal does not take a store card provider or a payday lender outside the FCA perimeter. Entering into a regulated credit agreement as lender is a specified activity under article 60B of the Regulated Activities Order, and neither product falls within the interest-free exemptions in article 60F. What governs the conduct once the Order goes is the Consumer Credit sourcebook: CONC 1.2.1R applies CONC to a firm carrying on credit-related regulated activities, the FCA definition of retail revolving credit expressly includes a store card, and CONC 5A applies the cost cap to high-cost short-term credit. The Consumer Duty applies as well. Principle 12 requires a firm to act to deliver good outcomes for retail customers, and PRIN 2A.9 and PRIN 2A.8 require it to monitor those outcomes and to report on them annually to its governing body, which must confirm whether it is satisfied that the firm is complying. Where the Order required it to list a product on a price comparison website or to give the customer a summary of borrowing costs, a screenshot evidenced compliance. Evidencing an outcome requires the firm to monitor whether its communications support customer understanding and to keep the results of that monitoring.
Implications for a business bound by one of the 33 remedies
A business bound by one of the 33 remedies must identify which of the four headings the CMA relied on for its remedy, and then read what the CMA says the successor framework does and does not carry across. Where the reason is a change in regulation, the compliance manual, the training, the contractual warranties and the audit programme must all point at the instrument that now governs, and the evidence pack behind them must change shape where a prescriptive requirement gives way to an outcomes duty. The enforcement route changes with it. Section 167 of the Enterprise Act 2002 makes compliance with a market remedy a duty owed to any person who may be affected, gives a person who sustains loss a right of action subject to a defence of all reasonable steps and all due diligence, and lets the CMA seek an injunction. A Financial Conduct Authority rule covering the same conduct carries a different supervisor, enforcement route and appeal.
For home credit, private motor insurance and retail banking the CMA proposes to remove named Parts, Articles and Schedules and to retain the remainder, with draft variation orders at Appendices C, D and E of the provisional decision. The retained parts are retained for stated reasons that bear on how they will be supervised: the CMA proposes to retain Part 5 of the home credit order because of the early settlement terms it gives consumers who may be vulnerable, and flags that the government’s reform of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 may bear on that in future. The open banking provisions of the Retail Banking Market Investigation Order 2017 sit in Part 2, which the CMA excluded from the review altogether.
The timing matters on transactions. A target bound by one of these remedies may be bound by something materially different by the end of October 2026, so the diligence answer given today is not necessarily the answer at completion. Our regulatory due diligence page covers the standard scope on a regulated target.
Viewpoint
At paragraph 1.11 the CMA records the Department for Business and Trade’s Refining our competition regime consultation, which ran from 20 January to 31 March 2026 and proposed that concurrent regulators should be able, by mutual consent, to take responsibility for monitoring and enforcing market remedies the CMA has imposed or accepted in their sectors. The CMA says that if the proposal proceeds it will work with the relevant regulator to consider whether that regulator should assume responsibility for remedies in its sector, including remedies retained in this review. The supervisor of a retained remedy may therefore change. In my view that is the more consequential development for a business in a sector with a concurrent regulator, and a reason to make representations on the retention decisions while the CMA’s consultation is open. Which regulators hold concurrent competition powers, and how the CMA coordinates with them, is set out at concurrent competition powers in regulated sectors.
Frequently asked questions
What is the CMA markets remedies review?
It is a strategic review, launched on 19 January 2026, of 33 market investigation remedies made between 1987 and 2017 under the Fair Trading Act 1973 or the Enterprise Act 2002. The CMA is assessing whether, by reason of a change of circumstances, each remedy is no longer appropriate and should be amended or removed. It published its provisional decision on 12 August 2026.
What is the legal test for removing a market investigation remedy?
Whether, by reason of any change of circumstances, the remedy is no longer appropriate. The duty to consider that question is in section 162(1) and (2) of the Enterprise Act 2002 for Enterprise Act remedies, and in sections 88(4) and (5) of the Fair Trading Act 1973, preserved by Schedule 24 to the Enterprise Act 2002, for the older ones. Schedule 10 sets the notice and consultation procedure.
Does removing a remedy mean the obligation disappears?
Rarely in the same form. On the store card and payday lending orders the CMA or the FCA states that the successor framework does not replicate the specific requirement being removed. What replaces a prescriptive rule is usually an outcomes-based duty, such as the Consumer Duty, plus supervision of whether the outcomes are delivered. Where the CMA relies on market developments or the age of the remedy, the residual controls are general competition and consumer law.
When does the consultation close and what happens next?
Representations are due by 5pm on 11 September 2026, sent to the CMA at the address given in the provisional decision, with confidential and non-confidential versions. The CMA expects to publish its final decision, together with non-confidential versions of the responses, in October 2026.
For advice on whether a market investigation remedy still applies to your business, and on what governs the conduct if it is removed, contact Rob Bratby at Bratby Law.
