Table of Contents
- UK CMA Investigates Information Sharing Through Analytics Tool
- Investigation Into Adobe’s Use of Early Cancellation Fees in the UK
- UK CAT Dismisses Claim Alleging Illegal Subsidy to National Lottery
- UK CMA Clears Deal Under Failing Firm Defence
UK CMA Investigates Information Sharing Through Analytics Tool
On 2 March 2026, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced an investigation under UK competition law into suspected sharing of competitively sensitive information (CSI) among hotel chains using a data analytics tool. The investigation concerns three chains and the owner of the tool. The CMA stated that no assumptions should be made about whether UK competition law was broken.
Sharing certain types of CSI, even one-way, such as future pricing information, can be a serious infringement of UK competition law. No further information is available, but the CMA’s concerns may be that the hotel chains were able to access CSI on current and future pricing and other similar issues regarding the other companies through their subscriptions to the tool.
In this matter, the CMA is focused on ensuring that new technologies are not used to harm consumers, but the concerns behind this investigation are not new. In 2011, the CMA’s predecessor, Office of Fair Trading (OFT), accepted commitments to close an investigation of six insurance companies and two software providers to limit data exchange among them using a similar tool.
The OFT’s investigation had identified an increased risk of price coordination among motor insurers using a specialist market analysis tool provided by Experian called WhatIf? Private Motor. The investigation arose because the insurers were able to access information about their competitors’ future pricing intentions. Under the commitments, the companies agreed to exchange pricing information through the tool only if it met certain principles agreed to with the OFT. These principles required the information, if less than six months old, to be anonymised, aggregated across at least five insurers and already “live” in broker-sold policies.
Investigation Into Adobe’s Use of Early Cancellation Fees in the UK
Under new powers contained in the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the CMA is able directly to enforce consumer protection law in the UK instead of going through the courts. The most recent example of its use of these powers is an investigation announced on 19 March 2026 into Adobe.
The investigation concerns the company’s use of early cancellation fees on membership plans for certain products. Customers who cancel more than 14 days after signing up to its “annual billed monthly” plan — in which they agree to a yearly contract and pay monthly — must pay 50% of the remaining yearly cost. After they cancel, customers will have access to the product until the end of that month’s billing period.
The investigation will examine whether these terms are unfair and if customers are given clear and timely information upfront about the early cancellation fees, which are likely to influence their decision to purchase the product.
This is the ninth business the CMA is investigating under its new direct consumer enforcement powers. In addition to determining whether consumer law has been breached, the CMA is now able to secure redress for consumers and impose fines on companies when appropriate. At this stage, the CMA has reached no conclusions about whether Adobe has broken the law.
UK CAT Dismisses Claim Alleging Illegal Subsidy to National Lottery
On 26 February 2026, the UK Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) dismissed a claim that the Gambling Commission had provided an illegal subsidy under the UK Subsidy Control Act 2022 (SCA) to Camelot UK Lotteries Limited in relation to its operation of the UK National Lottery. The case offers important guidance on the commercial market operator (CMO) principle and on the timing for an action in cases in which no transparency information is published because the public body involved does not consider a subsidy has been provided.
The claim was brought by the New Lottery Company (NLC), a competitor that had bid for the renewal of the lottery license. NLC argued that the decision of the Gambling Commission, a public body, to assign £70.21 million to Camelot to market the National Lottery conferred a subsidy and an illegal economic advantage. This was “on the grounds that the subsidy provided Camelot with resources to market and promote the National Lottery, thereby improving the National Lottery’s competitive position in the relevant markets.”
The CAT found that the Gambling Commission’s decision was consistent with normal market conditions under the CMO principle, meaning there was no subsidy from a public body within the meaning of the SCA. In reaching this finding, the CAT found that the transaction “fell comfortably within the wide margin of judgment available” to the Gambling Commission in determining how a commercial market operator might behave in such circumstances.
The CAT did not need to rule on the point to decide the case but commented that Camelot received the alleged benefit through public resources, including the forgoing of revenue otherwise due to a public body, and that it was specific to Camelot. Had it reached a different conclusion on the CMO principle, the CAT would therefore have concluded that the grant was indeed a subsidy, and the Gambling Commission should have considered and complied with the subsidy control principles under the SCA before it was granted.
The CAT also found that in any event the action had not been brought “sufficiently promptly.” An appeal in an SCA case must be brought before the CAT within one month of the “transparency date” — the point at which information is posted on the National Transparency Database — or within one month of a response having been provided following a Pre-Action Information Request under the SCA.
In this case, transparency information had not been uploaded because the Gambling Commission took the view that there was no subsidy. The CAT stated that in these circumstances, which is common, the relevant date is that on which the interested third party knew or should have known of the decision.
UK CMA Clears Deal Under Failing Firm Defence
When investigating an acquisition, the CMA compares its effects with what would likely happen if the transaction did not go ahead, the counterfactual. One type of counterfactual is known as the “exiting firm” scenario.
Under this scenario, the CMA considers whether, absent the transaction, one of the companies is likely to have exited the market. The parties are required to demonstrate that the company is likely to have exited through failure or otherwise — usually when it is failing financially — and, if so, there would not have been an alternative, less anti-competitive purchaser for the company or its assets than the actual acquirer.
The exiting firm scenario is difficult to prove and therefore rarely successful. However, on 5 March 2026, the CMA announced it had cleared the acquisition of Aston Barclay by Constellation Developments through its British Car Auctions (BCA) business. BCA and Aston Barclay both offer used vehicle auction services to large national business vendors and buyers in the UK.
The CMA found that if the deal had not gone ahead, the most likely outcome was that Aston Barclay would have closed, and some of its assets would have been sold to buyer(s) that could not compete closely with BCA for large national vendors. That meant that, with or without the transaction, the competitive pressure exerted on BCA by Aston Barclay would have been lost. The CMA therefore approved the transaction despite finding that prior to the transaction, “Aston Barclay exerted a material competitive constraint on BCA.”
Additional EU and UK competition law news coverage can be found on McGuireWoods’ Insights page. McGuireWoods also publishes legal alerts on U.S. antitrust developments and numerous other topics.