On 17 July 2026, the UK's Department for Business and Trade (DBT) published a consultation 'Swifter and simpler competition redress, regulatory appeals and competition enforcement' (the Consultation), which outlines wide-ranging proposals to reform the competition class actions regime, competition enforcement processes and unify the regulatory appeals regime.
What you need to know
- Opt-out class actions: the Consultation seeks stakeholder views on a number of proposals to improve the way the opt-out regime works, including proposals to increase the certification standard by requiring consideration of the absolute suitability of a claim and its merits, placing greater weight on the costs/benefits of the claim at certification and considering the sufficiency of evidence for an aggregate damages award. The Consultation also proposes to increase certainty for funders by lifting the prohibition on DBAs for opt-out claims, requiring the CAT to give indicative assessments on funder returns at certification and allowing funder returns to be paid in priority to class members.
- Enhancing Type A leniency: the Consultation seeks views on whether Type A leniency applicants should receive immunity from private damages claims, unless the other cartelists are unable to pay.
- CMA ordered redress scheme: the Consultation outlines a proposal to empower the CMA to direct businesses to create redress schemes for consumers, with presumed levels of overcharge. The Consultation also seeks views on enhancing the existing regime for undertakings to establish voluntary redress schemes.
- Competition law investigations: the Consultation outlines a number of changes with the stated aim of making investigations faster and more efficient, including proposals to give the CMA more flexibility in its procedures, including its decision-making processes and associated changes, such as the access to file process and the use of confidentiality rings. The Consultation also seeks views on a range of procedural matters, as well as a new fixed penalty cap for infringements (alongside the existing 10% of turnover limit) and clarifications to the competition director disqualification regime.
- Unified regulatory appeals framework: the Consultation outlines a proposal for appeals against decisions by economic regulators (Ofgem, Ofwat, CAA etc) to be unified and heard in the CAT on a standard based on judicial review principles and consideration of whether a decision was wrong on the facts. The Consultation also seeks stakeholder views on proposals to unify eligibility criteria for such appeals and potential cost-recovery mechanisms for appeals.
Proposed changes to the collective actions regime
The collective actions regime in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT) provides redress options for those who suffer loss as a result of anti-competitive conduct. The Consultation builds on responses to the DBT’s call for evidence and sets out a number of proposals to reform the regime, with the stated aim of balancing redress while protecting businesses from unmeritorious claims. The Consultation expressly states that the government does not currently intend to revise the scope of the regime; however, it notes that the Law Commission is currently considering the risks and benefits of a future consumer class actions regime.
Higher bar for certification of claims
Collective actions must first be ‘certified’ by the CAT before a claim can proceed to trial. The Consultation states that the certification threshold is too low and that this has weakened the filtering process intended to safeguard the regime against speculative claims. While the Consultation recognises that the recent UK Supreme Court decision in Evans v Barclays [2025] UKSC 48 (see our January 2026 update) does "go some way" to rebalancing the certification threshold, three key changes are proposed to clarify the certification standard:
- Introduction of an absolute suitability requirement: requiring the CAT to consider the absolute suitability of a proposed claim (i.e., proportionality), which would require a consideration of the merits of the proposed claim. The case law currently requires the CAT to assess the relative suitability and the degree to which an opt-out claim is more suitable than individual claims;
- Greater weight to the cost/benefit of a proposed claim: requiring the CAT to give greater weight to the costs and benefits of proposed claims. As part of this assessment, regard would also be had to the foreseeable returns to class members, including the likely take-up rate, which should be compared against the costs to bring the claim; and
- Evidence: the Consultation proposes that the CAT consider whether there is sufficient evidence to assess damages on an aggregate basis as one of the factors to be considered in determining whether a claim is eligible to be brought as a collective action.
The Consultation does not propose to revise or impose new obligations on class representatives. However, the Consultation is seeking views on whether the CAT's procedural rules or accompanying guidance should clarify these obligations. The Consultation suggests that this could include guidance on funding arrangements, the use of costs specialists and consultative panels.
Reforms to the funding of opt-out claims
The funding of collective actions has increasingly been in the spotlight in recent years, following the UK Supreme Court’s decision in PACCAR, which found that litigation funding agreements formulated on a percentage basis are a form of damages-based agreement (DBA) and the government's commitment, following the Civil Justice Council's 2025 review of litigation funding, to reverse the effect of PACCAR and regulate litigation funding.
The Consultation includes the following proposals to reform funding arrangements for opt-out claims:
- Allowing DBAs to fund opt-out claims: a proposal to allow DBAs to be used in opt-out collective actions. The Consultation notes that this may allow law firms to fund claims on a “no win no fee” basis and that allowing DBAs may increase funding options, which could drive down funding costs and increase the regime's resilience. The Consultation notes that the proposals to revise the certification threshold, as outlined above, would guard against the risks of speculative or unmeritorious claims brought using DBAs;
- Clarity on funder returns at certification: the Consultation proposes that the CAT, at the certification stage, give an indication on the reasonableness of the funder’s return / payments specified in the litigation funding agreement. The Consultation expressly recognises that the CAT would have discretion to revisit its early indication at the conclusion of the claim if there is a notable change; and
- Presumption for payment before distribution: the introduction of a presumption that funders can receive their returns prior to the distribution of funds to class members.
The Consultation makes clear that the proposed changes would apply only in the context of claims brought in the CAT and that a review would be undertaken, after broader reforms are introduced, to ensure the Consultation reforms are aligned with wider litigation funding reforms.
Distribution
The Consultation recognises the regime’s primary objective is to deliver redress for consumers and small businesses. However, in recognition of the limited distribution examples to date, no reforms are proposed to the way in which sums are distributed. The Consultation is nonetheless seeking views on:
- Undistributed damages: the best destination for undistributed damages. The Consultation notes that the Access to Justice Foundation is currently designated as the charity to receive undistributed damages. However, the government is considering other options, including allowing undistributed damages to be given to Which? (the Consumers' Association); and
- Increasing consumer trust: how best to enhance consumer trust in the regime to increase take-up rates.
Additional reforms to the opt-out regime
The Consultation proposes reforms to a number of additional aspects of the opt-out regime, including:
- Powers to mandate ADR: encouraging mediation or giving the CAT the power to order mandatory mediation after the parties exchange expert reports. The Consultation notes that, while early ADR may be ineffective, parties may have a greater ability to assess a realistic outcome for the proceedings once expert reports have been exchanged. The Consultation also proposes that a party's failure to engage in mediation may become a factor relevant to the assessment of costs;
- New cost shifting powers: a proposal to allow for settlement offers with automatic cost shifting consequences, akin to the existing "Rule 45 offers" used in other proceedings in the CAT.
The Consultation is also seeking views from stakeholders on the following issues:
- Mandatory costs budgets: requiring defendants and class representatives to file cost budgets after certification;
- Clearer guidance on cost sanctions: potential cost sanctions for failures to stick to cost budgets or litigation tactics aimed at draining litigation budgets; and
- Settlement approval process: whether changes should be made to shorten the settlement approval process. The Consultation recognises that the regime may require more time to develop as there are currently only a few example settlement approval orders.
Improving the CAT’s efficiency
The Consultation proposes a number of additional changes to the CAT's broader operations including:
- Filing fees: the introduction of application fees for private litigation, which would be linked to the value of the claim and subject to a cap (to be reviewed within five years of introduction);
- More flexible panel composition: revisions to the CAT's procedures which would allow CAT panels to consist of up to three members, as opposed to requiring three members to sit on every case. The Consultation notes that this would ease pressure on resources and provide greater efficiency to deal with more discrete issues, such as those that do not require specialist expertise;
- Regular review of the CAT Rules: a requirement that the CAT rules are reviewed every three years by a sub-group of the CAT User Group; and
- Involvement of concurrent regulators: the Consultation proposes to broaden the existing requirements to send claim forms and other relevant documents to CMA and any relevant concurrent regulator. The Consultation also proposes to allow concurrent regulators to submit written observations to the CAT.
Proposed changes to Competition Act investigations and redress
The Consultation outlines a number of proposed changes which seek to ensure that competition enforcement delivers more efficient results, while preserving procedural fairness. A number of changes proposed in the Consultation seek to align competition enforcement procedures to the new processes that the CMA follows in the context of its direct consumer enforcement powers. In addition, there are potentially significant changes which would reform the way in which public and private enforcement of competition law work together.
Type A leniency and immunity from private damages claims
The CMA operates a leniency programme which allows members of cartels to inform the CMA of potential infringements of the Competition Act 1998. The CMA leniency policy was last updated in November 2025 (see our November 2025 update) and Type A leniency grants the first applicant to notify the CMA of the existence of a cartel (and provide evidence) immunity from financial penalties, criminal prosecution, director disqualification, and debarment/exclusion from public contracts.
Leniency only applies in respect of the CMA's investigation and does not currently provide immunity from private damages claims. The Consultation notes the long-standing tension between private enforcement and public investigations, as leniency applicants may consider the risk of private litigation outweighs the benefits provided by immunity from public enforcement. The Consultation also highlights the recent growth of private claims and a decline in Type A leniency applications in recent years.
In light of these developments, the Consultation seeks stakeholder views on whether full immunity from private litigation should be available for Type A leniency applicants. The Consultation proposes that the CAT would have the power to set aside such protection in circumstances where private damages would otherwise be unrecoverable from remaining cartelists, such as where the remaining cartelists are insolvent.
Expansion of CMA redress schemes
In the context of competition enforcement, companies have been able to voluntarily propose redress schemes to compensate stakeholders impacted by anti-competitive harm, however, no voluntary redress schemes have been deployed since the regime was implemented in 2015. The Consultation states that there may be more efficient ways for redress to be obtained beyond litigation and proposes a number of changes that would significantly expand the scope and effect of redress schemes, including:
- CMA-imposed redress schemes: giving the CMA the power to require the establishment of redress schemes for competition infringements. The Consultation notes that such schemes are likely to be deployed in "straightforward cases" where the range of those impacted by an infringement can be clearly established;
- Mandating an assumed level of overcharge by businesses to consumers: for both voluntary and mandatory redress schemes, the Consultation proposes to create a "presumption" to calculate the overall levels of redress, which could be based on OECD guidance or academic studies. The Consultation expressly notes that a simpler approach to calculating loss will ensure affected consumers are compensated; and
- Removing duplicative damages liability: the Consultation proposes to introduce clarifications to allow redress schemes to include a waiver for individual participants and ensure sums offered via redress schemes are accounted for in the context of damages claims (including at the certification stage of collective actions).
The Consultation notes that the introduction of mandatory redress schemes, with protections against duplicative damages liability, will increase parties' incentives to establish voluntary redress schemes, with the Consultation also proposing to simplify the requirements for a voluntary redress scheme.
Changes to CMA decision-making process
The Consultation proposes to reform the CMA decision-making process for competition infringements by allowing the CMA to define its own decision-making process through guidance.
The Consultation proposes to retain the CMA's two-stage decision-making process (a proposed infringement decision, followed by a final decision), while giving the CMA more autonomy to determine how those decisions are made in practice. The Consultation notes that this would be in line with the CMA's consumer enforcement powers and that the CMA would consult on any revised guidance on those processes. In addition, the Consultation makes clear that the government would expect the CMA to include individuals not previously involved in an investigation to be involved in final decision-making, such as a model involving the Senior Responsible Officer and two decision-makers of equal seniority not previously involved in the investigation.
Other proposed substantive changes
The Consultation proposes two additional substantive changes to the competition enforcement regime:
- Changes to penalty caps: an additional penalty cap, which will supplement the existing cap of 10% of global turnover, to give the CMA the ability to penalise companies which did not generate turnover in the prior business years, or where their turnover is not representative of their ordinary business activities. The Consultation makes reference to the consumer enforcement regime, which allows for penalties to be the higher of £300,000 or up to 10% of turnover. The Consultation seeks views on whether a cap of £300,000 would be appropriate in relation to competition infringements; and
- Revisions to the competition disqualification orders (CDOs) regime: two additional changes are proposed to the CDO regime: (i) to clarify that CDOs can be made against both current and former company directors and (ii) a technical amendment to make clear that competition law infringements are not matters to be disregarded by a court when deciding whether to make a CDO.
Proposed procedural changes
The Consultation proposes a number of additional procedural amendments including in relation to:
- Streamlining settlement processes: the Consultation proposes a number of changes to streamline settlement, including dispensing with the requirement to provide parties with a further opportunity to comment on a draft statement of objections or statement of facts after a settlement agreement, streamlining the process for giving notice of an infringement decision in a settlement context by clarifying that a statement of facts or draft SO is sufficient notice for the purposes of the Competition Act 1998, and giving the CMA flexibility to specify, in its guidance, how access to file would operate in the context of settlement. The Consultation also proposes to incorporate into the CMA rules an express obligation on the settling parties not to appeal a settlement decision;
- Additional flexibility in managing claims for confidential information: giving the CMA greater flexibility where parties have claimed that information is confidential. The Consultation notes that the current CMA Rules, which require the CMA to seek further representations before publishing information identified as confidential, go beyond what is required by confidentiality protections in Part 9 of the Enterprise Act 2002. It therefore proposes to omit the relevant Rule and instead rely on the CMA's guidance. The Consultation states that the proposal would align the investigations process to the consumer enforcement regime;
- Development of standardised confidentiality rings: a proposal to introduce a prescribed legal framework for the use of confidentiality rings, which would be accessible to legal and non-legal advisers and allow confidential information to be disclosed without the need to obtain confidentiality representations from third parties. The Consultation notes that this may include the introduction of civil penalties for individuals and firms who breach confidentiality ring rules and that a standardised confidentiality ring could also be used in CMA merger and markets cases;
- Broadening the exceptions from access to file: more flexibility to withhold routine correspondence and documents provided by the respondents as part of the access to file process. In addition, the Consultation proposes to give the CMA more flexibility in providing access to file in the context of settlement decisions (as noted above) and in the context of interim measures; and
- Streamlining CMA notice publication: the CMA should no longer be subject to a requirement to publish certain notices in the London, Edinburgh and Belfast Gazettes, and should no longer be required to maintain a physical copy of the competition infringement public register.
Proposed changes to unify the framework for regulatory appeals
Appeals of decisions made by the UK's economic regulators have a complex landscape, with each regulatory decision having its own bespoke appeal process through differing forums (referrals to the CMA, the CAT or UK courts), with different grounds of review and differing lists of persons entitled to challenge those decisions. The Consultation proposes to unify the appeals process for price control determinations, modifications of licence/appointment conditions and code modifications made by various regulators including Ofwat, Ofgem, the CAA, Ofcom and certain devolved sector regulators.
The Consultation proposes that the new appeal process will involve:
- Forum: the CAT would be responsible for hearing these regulatory appeals. The Consultation notes that the CAT is already responsible for hearing certain appeals and consolidating regulatory appeals, including matters currently determined by the CMA, would support more consistent appeal outcomes and enable the CMA to focus on interventions that can support economic growth. The Consultation also recognises that the CAT can use active case management to ensure appeals are dealt with efficiently;
- Appeal standard: the Consultation states that appeals would be clearer, more effective and proportionate if a harmonised appeal standard was adopted and proposes that appeals would be heard on standard judicial review principles, while also allowing the CAT to assess whether the decision was "wrong" on the merits. The Consultation also proposes that the CAT would be able to uphold or quash all or part of a decision, with quashed decisions to be remitted back to the decision maker; and
- Appeal eligibility: the Consultation invites views on whether existing sector-specific appeal eligibility provisions should be retained, or a more unified approach adopted to establishing eligibility to bring an appeal (for example, granting the right to the relevant licence / appointment holder and persons whose interests are materially affected by the regulator’s decision).
The Consultation also welcomes views on potential cost-recovery mechanisms or other arrangements that support parties (including consumer bodies) exercising appeal rights and notes that the admission of new evidence and cross-examination of witnesses would be allowed in appeals, subject to the CAT Rules.
No changes are proposed for regulatory decisions in the rail sector, or decisions by the Payment Systems Regulator, as these are both subject to ongoing legislative reform processes.
Next steps
The Consultation is open until 25 September 2026. The proposals outlined in the Consultation, if taken forward, would require a broad range of implementation measures including changes to CMA and CAT guidance, revisions to CAT and CMA rules and proposals which require primary legislation. No implementation timeline is specified in the Consultation and the changes are not expected to come into force until Q2 2027 at the earliest.
Other authors: Hayden Dunnett, Senior Associate; Eleanor Popplewell, Associate; Brihadeesh Murali, Associate
