CMA clamps down on checkout tricks as consumer enforcement pipeline accelerates

A familiar fact pattern is emerging: the CMA identifies a relatively high-profile target in a priority sector, and in a relatively quick process agrees a settlement comprising a fine and a consumer redress mechanism. The settlements with Marks Electrical and StubHub UK, and the launch of an investigation into Ryanair, illustrate the point, and signal the CMA's willingness to take on some of Europe's highest-profile consumer-facing businesses.

Marks Electrical and StubHub: pre-selected extras and hidden fees

The CMA’s investigations into Marks Electrical and StubHub were launched in November 2025. Both Marks Electrical and StubHub admitted their respective infringements of consumer laws and settled with the CMA. The fines imposed on each company reflect a 40% discount. As part of each settlement, the CMA exercised its consumer redress powers, ordering both companies to refund affected customers automatically.

The table below sets out further details:

Ryanair: mandatory charges

The CMA has opened an investigation into Ryanair over a mandatory fee charged to parents who must sit with their children on flights. Ryanair is understood to be the only major airline flying out of the UK to impose a GBP8 mandatory fee for parent’s seat reservations when flying with children aged two to 11; other airlines offer to seat children with a parent or guardian without the need for a paid-for adult seat reservation or allocate seats together during booking, automatically. 

The investigation focuses on two aspects. First, whether Ryanair's contract term requiring parents to pay for a seat reservation to sit with their child is “unfair” under consumer law and, in particular, if Ryanair's approach means that parents are being charged for the airline to meet its own obligations under aviation rules. Second, whether the mandatory family seat fee is “dripped” during the booking process rather than being included in the total price shown upfront. 

The CMA is at an early stage of its investigation and has reached no conclusions about whether Ryanair has broken the law. 

Key takeaways

1. Choice architecture is firmly on the CMA's radar

The Marks Electrical case confirms that the CMA's enforcement priorities encompass the broader design of online customer journeys. Pre-ticked boxes, default extras, and subtle nudges that steer consumers towards additional payments are all squarely in scope.

This is consistent with the CMA's clear pricing campaign which encourages businesses to ensure their prices are clear and upfront. Businesses should take the opportunity to review their online customer journeys end-to-end. If a service is genuinely optional, the default position must be that the customer has not selected it, i.e., consumers must actively opt-in.

While pre-ticked boxes and equivalent revenue-maximizing features may be effective commercially, they are unlikely to have been designed with consumer law compliance as their starting point. The Marks Electrical case makes clear that the CMA will not hesitate to act where those techniques cross the line.

2. The Ryanair case will test the boundaries of the CMA's new powers

The Ryanair investigation goes beyond straightforward drip pricing, raising questions about unfair contract terms and whether a mandatory charge can be considered an inherent part of the service or an improperly “dripped” add-on. How the case unfolds will provide important insight into the CMA's approach to pricing practices.

The probe also represents the first test of the CMA’s enforcement powers against unfair contract terms. The CMA is due to update its guidance in this area following a consultation that closed earlier this year.

Given Ryanair’s record of challenging regulatory enforcement, the case could also result in a test of the new enforcement framework in ways that the three settled cases have not. Ryanair’s response to the CMA’s action was robust, noting that its family seating policy is fully compliant with all relevant laws and its intention to “disprov[e] the false CMA claims.” Ryanair has since announced tweaks to its policy.

Interestingly, the case is also an example of the CMA launching enforcement action in an area already examined by an overseas regulator. In 2024, Ryanair lost an appeal against the Italian civil aviation authority’s ban on airlines charging extra fees for seat reservations when passengers must sit next to children or people with disabilities.

3. Early engagement continues to pay dividends

Both Marks Electrical and StubHub UK admitted breaking the law and settled their cases with the CMA. In each case, the company’s constructive engagement and early settlement secured a 40% reduction to the financial penalty. This follows the pattern established in the AA case in April, where the CMA highlighted the benefits of early settlement for both businesses and consumers. In accepting settlement, companies agree not to appeal or challenge the CMA’s decision in court.

The message is clear: businesses that cooperate with the CMA and resolve issues promptly can expect more favorable outcomes than those that resist or delay.

4. Enforcement outcomes are accelerating

Since imposing the first fine under its direct consumer enforcement powers in February, these latest cases bring the total fines imposed for substantive consumer law infringements to GBP5.8 million, alongside over GBP1.95m in refunds for consumers.

With the CMA's pricing transparency campaign continuing and several initial investigation cases still pending updates, businesses should expect the pace of enforcement, as well as the quantum of refunds and fines, to increase over the coming months.