CMA enforcement gathers pace with second DMCC Act consumer infringement decision

On 18 June 2026 the CMA adopted its second infringement decision under the new strengthened consumer protection regime introduced under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC Act). Marks Electrical, a retailer of electrical appliances, has been fined £720,000 and ordered to refund consumers a total amount of £600,000 over pre-selected extra charges. 

The CMA found that Marks Electrical had charged customers for extra services without their express agreement. When purchasing appliances customers were automatically opted into a ‘recycle old appliance’ service under which their old appliance was removed and recycled, and an ‘unwrap and recycle packaging’ service, unwrapping and removing packaging at the time of delivery. Such automatic opt-ins for optional goods or services without the customer’s express consent are in breach of the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 which are now enforced under the CMA’s new direct consumer enforcement powers.

The CMA’s guidance on consent for additional charges when selling online makes it clear that consumers must have a genuine choice over whether to pay for an extra product or service they may or may not wish to choose. Businesses cannot use pre-ticked boxes or other forms of automatic opt-in for optional extras, if that means they will have to pay for these unless they take action to opt out.

Reduced fine for settlement

The £720,000 fine includes a 40% discount for early settlement, a process whereby a party under investigation admits that it has infringed consumer law, accepts a streamlined administrative procedure and agrees not to appeal or otherwise challenge the final decision. The maximum penalty discount available is 40% where the party agrees to the terms of the settlement before the CMA issues a provisional infringement decision. The discount reflects the efficiencies achieved through a streamlined administrative procedure and the resource savings for the CMA.

Consumer redress measures

The infringement decision also includes an order for Marks Electrical to refund its customers the charge they paid for the additional services included without their express consent. The amount will vary depending on how much was paid for the extra services, but the average payout will be around £15 adding up to a total of around £600,000. Affected customers will be automatically refunded to the method used when purchasing the appliance.

Lessons from the early cases

The first investigations under the new regime were launched in November 2025, into eight businesses covering a wide range of sectors (see our blogpost here). In line with the CMA’s enforcement priorities these first investigations are focused on online pricing practices, in particular drip pricing and pressure selling tactics such as automatic opt-ins for additional goods or services and urgent time limited claims. Two of these eight investigations have now completed.

In April 2026 the CMA announced that it had fined the AA, which owns the AA and BSM driving schools, £4.2 million for having engaged in drip pricing practices by not including a mandatory booking fee in the initial price displayed for driving lessons. The fine, reduced from an initial figure of £7 million, reflects a 40% reduction for the AA’s constructive engagement with the CMA and settling the case early following an admission of wrongdoing. The CMA also ordered the AA to refund a total of £760,000 in fees to all affected individuals by means of an automatic refund to their payment cards. The amount repaid to each consumer will vary according to the number of lesson packages purchased, with the average payout being around £9 per person.

It is interesting to note that both cases involved an early settlement with a 40% discount for the fine imposed. This demonstrates the potential advantage of being prepared to move quickly and engage transparently with the CMA when an investigation is launched. It also raises important strategic considerations around the admission of an infringement and the waiver of certain procedural rights, such as the right to appeal the CMA’s decision and is therefore not always a straightforward decision.

In both cases the CMA used its powers to order the businesses to refund consumers directly for the harm suffered as a result of the breach. This is not a new power, but it is one that the CMA can be expected to use in future consumer protection cases, as it allows it to demonstrate that its enforcement actions are benefiting consumers directly. 

Speed in decision making is also a common factor. Both cases concluded in a period of five and seven months respectively. Compared to competition law investigations, which can run for several years, this is quick. For breaches of consumer protection rules that are always unfair and don’t require an assessment of the transactional decision test (ie whether the conduct caused or is likely to cause the average consumer to make a transactional decision they would otherwise not have made), enforcement is more straightforward. It remains to be seen how this will compare against the more complex cases that will require the CMA to apply this test.

The CMA currently has another thirteen investigations ongoing under its new consumer enforcement regime, including five investigations into potential fake or misleading reviews (see our blogpost here), an investigation into Adobe’s early cancellation fees and into Ryanair’s fees for mandatory family seats charged for parents to sit with their children aged 2-11. We can therefore expect to see the CMA adopt a number of decisions over the coming months that will further clarify its enforcement approach.