On 14 October 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced fines totalling more than £6 million against three businesses for breaches of UK consumer law involving time-limited offers, paid-for optional extras and the presentation of mandatory fees. The cases provide an early indication of the CMA’s approach to financial penalties under its new direct consumer enforcement powers.
The penalties were:
- Wayfair: £4.8 million. The CMA found that products promoted through “Daily Deals”, 24-hour “Flash Deals” and countdown timers remained available at the same or a lower price after the stated deadline.
- Appliances Direct: £1.2 million, together with approximately £432,000 in refunds. In addition to time-limited promotions that did not expire as represented, customers were automatically opted into paid-for removal, recycling or installation services.
- Gold’s Gym: £45,000, together with approximately £9,000 in refunds. The CMA found that mandatory joining fees were not included sufficiently clearly and promptly in the total membership price presented to consumers.
False urgency: an increased enforcement risk
The Wayfair and Appliances Direct decisions underline the regulatory risk associated with time-limited promotions.
Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA), falsely stating that a product, or particular terms, will only be available for a very limited period is a prohibited commercial practice. The CMA’s findings illustrate that where a business represents that an offer expires at a particular time, its underlying pricing and promotional arrangements need to support that representation.
This has practical implications for the way promotions are implemented. Time-limited offers are often operated through automated pricing and promotional systems, rather than considered individually. Businesses should therefore ensure that the controls surrounding those systems prevent a supposedly time-limited offer from simply continuing, or being immediately replicated, after the advertised deadline.
The cases also demonstrate the evidential significance of historic pricing data. Where an offer is said to expire at a specified time, the subsequent price of the relevant product can provide clear evidence as to whether that representation was accurate. This serves as an important reminder for businesses to maintain contemporaneous data to be able to substantiate pricing claims if required.
Settlement
All three businesses admitted the infringements and agreed to settle early, receiving a 40% reduction in their fines. The CMA said that the settlements enabled it to resolve the cases more quickly and secure refunds for consumers.
The size of the discount demonstrates the potential value of early and constructive engagement with the CMA. However, businesses also need to have in mind the wider consequences of settlement. An admission of infringement will be public and may be relevant to consumer authorities in other jurisdictions, particularly where the same consumer journey or practice is used across multiple markets.
The redress orders are also significant. Appliances Direct was required to refund approximately £432,000 to affected customers and Gold’s Gym approximately £9,000. In businesses with high transaction volumes, consumer redress may therefore represent a material additional consequence of enforcement and significant operational challenge, alongside the financial penalty itself.
Parallels with the EU framework
There are important parallels between the UK and EU regimes.
The EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive also prohibits falsely stating that a product will only be available, or available on particular terms, for a very limited time in order to elicit an immediate consumer decision. The EU Consumer Rights Directive also prohibits additional payments unless the consumer has given express consent, preventing the use of pre-ticked boxes for paid-for extras.
In addition, in contrast to the UK, the EU Price Indication Directive imposes specific requirements when announcing price reductions – traders announcing a price reduction must identify the “prior price”, generally the lowest price applied by the trader during the preceding 30 days. In Aldi Süd, the Court of Justice confirmed that a percentage reduction or other promotional statement highlighting the advantageous nature of the advertised price must be determined by reference to that prior price.
As a result, a rolling or recurring promotion also raises both false urgency and price-reduction issues in the EU.
There is also an important difference in enforcement architecture. Since April 2025, the CMA has been able to determine infringements of consumer law directly and impose financial penalties under the DMCCA, rather than commencing court proceedings. The Wayfair, Appliances Direct and Gold’s Gym cases illustrate the significance of those powers in practice. In addition, they are a further indication that the CMA intends to use its direct enforcement powers against practices that are both widespread in digital consumer journeys and capable of being established from businesses’ own pricing and transactional data. In the EU, enforcement remains principally at Member State level, supported by cross-border cooperation through the Consumer Protection Cooperation framework.
What comes next: the EU Digital Fairness Act and UK price reduction consultation
Further EU rules are also expected. The European Commission is preparing a Digital Fairness Act (DFA), with a legislative proposal currently expected in Autumn 2026. The Commission has identified a number of practices potentially within scope, including dark patterns, addictive design, unfair personalisation, misleading influencer marketing, subscriptions, unfair practices relating to pricing and issues arising in digital contracts.
Businesses should also be aware that the UK government is planning to consult imminently on updating the DMCCA with respect to price reduction claims – including such so-called “was”/“now” pricing – as part of its current focus on “everyday fixes”.
The direction of travel is therefore clear even though the final legislative requirements are not. Digital consumer journeys, and in particular the way choices, prices and promotions are presented to consumers, will remain an important area of regulatory scrutiny. For businesses operating common consumer journeys across the UK and EU, this reinforces the value of reviewing promotional and checkout design across both regimes rather than treating UK and EU compliance as separate exercises.
What businesses should do now
Businesses operating consumer-facing websites and apps across the UK and EU should consider:
- Time-limited promotions: test a sample of recent promotions against historic pricing data to confirm that advertised deadlines were genuine.
- Promotional systems: assess whether automated pricing or promotional rules can inadvertently extend or repeat an offer after an advertised deadline.
- Optional extras: review checkout journeys to ensure that paid-for additional services or products are not pre-selected or added automatically.
- Total pricing: ensure that mandatory charges, including joining, booking or administration fees, are reflected appropriately in the price presented to consumers.
- EU price reductions: check that announced price reductions comply with the EU’s 30-day prior-price requirements when selling goods.
- Governance and evidence: maintain appropriate records of promotional decisions, pricing history and remedial action where compliance issues are identified.
We are closely monitoring the CMA’s use of its new DMCCA enforcement powers, including the practices it is targeting, its approach to penalties and consumer redress, and the factors affecting penalty levels. We are also monitoring the development of the EU Digital Fairness Act and its implications for consumer-facing businesses operating across the UK and EU.
Please contact Julia Hemmings or Lucy Hart if you would like to discuss the implications for your UK/EU-wide operations.
