Price transparency guidance lands as CMA launches first consumer law investigations using its new DMCC Act powers

Introduction  

On 18 November 2025, the CMA published its Guidance for businesses on the price transparency provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (the DMCC Act) and a summary of responses to its consultation on a previous draft of the guidance.

On the same day, the CMA launched its first investigations using new powers under the DMCC Act, opening investigations into 8 businesses, and issuing advisory letters to 100 more businesses.

In this article, we summarise the key points that consumer-facing businesses should note from the guidance and the new enforcement action.  

New enforcement action

The investigations focus on the presentation of mandatory fees, alleged drip pricing, default opt-ins and alleged 'pressure selling' practices. The CMA has also sent advisory letters to 100 firms across 14 sectors, including travel, fashion, and homeware, requesting that they review their online pricing practices.

This is the first enforcement action the CMA has launched using its new consumer protection powers under the DMCC Act. It follows a major CMA compliance review and signals an increased focus on online pricing practices across many industries. The CMA’s new powers enable it to issue fines of up to 10% of a business’ annual global turnover and require businesses to pay compensation and make compliance changes without the need for a court order. The CMA has indicated that whilst it will support businesses to comply with the law, it intends to take swift action in the most serious cases. Consequently, any business under investigation found to be in breach of the law could face a significant penalty. It will be interesting to see how quickly this enforcement action progresses and what the outcome will be. 

Price transparency guidance: a potted history

In December 2024, the CMA consulted on its draft unfair commercial practices guidance, which included detailed sections on price transparency. Following stakeholder feedback, most of this detail was omitted from the final version of that guidance, which was published in April 2025. The CMA then launched a separate consultation on draft price transparency guidance on 3 July 2025 (see our Law-Now on this here). The final guidance, published on 18 November 2025, differs from the draft in several respects.

What does the DMCC Act require in relation to pricing?

Section 230 of the DMCC applies to invitations to purchase (ITPs), which, as per the guidance, exist when a trader gives information to consumers about a product and its price. For example, ITPs can include a price on a product in a shop, an item listing on an online marketplace, and a TV ad. The guidance clarifies that consumers may encounter multiple ITPs in relation to a product (for example, an initial advert, followed by a product detail page), and stresses that each ITP must be lawful.

Under section 230, an ITP is misleading if it omits certain information, unless that information is apparent from the context. This includes the 'total price' (section 230(2)(b)) and any optional delivery charges not included in the total price, or the fact they may be payable if they cannot be reasonably calculated in advance (section 230(2)(g)). Under section 230(4), the total price includes all fees, taxes, charges, or other payments a consumer will necessarily incur if they purchase the product.

The guidance stresses that traders are responsible for ensuring that prices in ITPs do not mislead consumers. Prices are likely to be misleading if they are not realistic, misleading and attainable, not set out in a clear and timely way, and/or presented in a misleading way. Various examples illustrate these points in the guidance. For example, if an ITP shows a particular version of a product (such as a particular model of a car), the price shown should relate to that particular version.

The guidance also clarifies that drip pricing (where an initial headline price is shown, and additional mandatory charges are introduced as the consumer proceeds with a purchase) and partitioned pricing (where a trader provides two or more components of the price but no overall total) are prohibited as a result of section 230. 

Who is responsible for ensuring compliance with section 230?

The guidance advises that responsibility for compliance lies with the trader making the ITP, even if that trader is not the seller of the product. For example, price comparison websites, online marketplaces, or an influencer promoting other traders’ products are all making ITPs. The seller may also be responsible where a product is being marketed on their behalf or in their name. For example, if a product is listed for sale on an online marketplace, both the seller and marketplace could be held responsible if the ITP is non-compliant. The guidance therefore advises that traders using other businesses to market their product should ensure that those businesses have the information required to comply and that those businesses should ensure they are compliant.

When are charges considered mandatory?

The guidance distinguishes between mandatory and optional charges, advising that a charge is mandatory if a consumer cannot purchase the advertised product without paying the relevant charge. Genuinely optional services can be presented separately. However, a charge is not made optional simply by presenting it separately or describing it as an extra service. A charge is still considered mandatory even if a consumer could theoretically avoid it by purchasing or signing up for an additional product or paying an additional membership fee.

What if it’s not possible to calculate the total price?

If the total price, or any part of it, cannot reasonably be calculated in advance due to the product's nature, the trader must provide information on how the price will be calculated (section 230(2)(c)). This information must be as prominent as any calculable part of the price and enable the consumer to calculate the total price themselves (section 230(5)). The guidance:

• gives examples of when this might apply (e.g., products purchased by length, such as rope), stressing it is only relevant in cases where the nature of the product means that a total price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance;
• clarifies that traders cannot exclude charges from the total price if they do not relate to the product's nature (e.g., a service fee applicable to multiple products);
• states that once the consumer provides their requirements (e.g., how many metres of rope they want), the trader must provide a fully calculated total price; and
• suggests options where a total price cannot reasonably be calculated in advance, such as presenting a full price list with various options that consumers can use to calculate the total price, or an indicative or ‘from’ price (provided such price is realistic, meaningful and attainable).

What if there’s limited space or time to provide required pricing information?

Section 230(8) of the DMCC Act effectively allows traders to omit certain information from an ITP if the communication medium has space or time limitations, provided the information is given by other means. For example, it may not be possible to include all required information in an online search result, so a trader could provide the missing information on a linked product page. The guidance clarifies the CMA’s approach to applying this section to pricing information:

• Section 230(8) is unlikely to justify omitting required pricing information from an ITP, as traders can usually provide it regardless of the communication method. For example, a single price figure inclusive of all mandatory charges should fit on any device or media type.
• When assessing if space and time limitations apply, the CMA will consider the information the trader has chosen to include; required information under section 230 should not be omitted in favour of other information.
• The total price is crucial for consumer decision-making, so the threshold for justifying its omission due to time or space limitations is high.

What does the guidance say about specific types of charges?

The guidance covers how section 230 applies to specific types of charges, including delivery charges, per-transaction charges (e.g., for event tickets or service bookings), local taxes and fees for holiday or accommodation bookings, and periodic pricing (e.g., for subscriptions). Businesses that apply these charges should read the full guidance to assess what it means for their future approach.

In particular, delivery charges were a heavily debated topic in previous draft guidance, but the final guidance adopts a more practical position than previous drafts. The overall message is that mandatory delivery charges should be included in ITPs and, if reasonably calculable, in the total price. However, businesses should read the guidance to understand what this means in practice, particularly noting the following points:

• Mandatory delivery charges should generally be included in the total price when they are fixed (e.g., £X) for all deliveries, regardless of minimum purchases thresholds or distance; apply on a per-product basis, or when items on an online marketplace can be purchased individually and have their own delivery charges.
• Traders can present other pricing information, such as showing the base cost excluding delivery as the headline price, with the total price (including delivery) below it, or providing the total price with a breakdown.
• Where mandatory delivery charges vary and cannot be reasonably calculated in advance, the trader must indicate that they are payable and how they will be calculated, with this information being as prominent as the calculable part of the price. However, offering free or reduced shipping thresholds does not mean delivery charges are not calculable; the full or highest mandatory delivery fee should be included in the total price until the customer's basket qualifies for the free or reduced charge.
• Delivery charges are optional if the consumer can receive the product without paying for delivery having to pay the cost of delivery (e.g. by collecting the product from a local collection point for free). However, details of optional delivery charges (e.g. for premium delivery) should be provided in ITPs even though they do not need to be included in the total price.
• For e-commerce websites and apps, the guidance recognises that it is common for multiple products to be selected and purchased together.
  • Where delivery is only available for orders over a certain value (e.g., an online supermarket order), the trader must provide the consumer with the information needed to calculate the total order price and make the consumer aware of any minimum order thresholds.
  • If a delivery charge applies to the whole order rather than to specific products, it may not be realistic or meaningful to include this charge in each product's headline price. the headline price of each product when this charge would only be paid once. Instead, traders may provide the consumer with the total price of the products in another way. Various suggestions are offered in the guidance. For example, traders could provide a base price for each product, information about the delivery charge, and a clear and prominent rolling total that includes the mandatory delivery charge and updates as the consumer builds their basket.
  • When a consumer views their basket, they must be shown the total price based on the products it contains.
• Businesses must ensure that delivery charges are not presented misleadingly. For example, advertising free delivery on orders over a certain threshold without disclosing the charge for orders under that threshold may breach section 230 and other misleading omission provisions of the DMCC Act.

CMS comment

Although the relevant DMCC Act provisions have been in force since 6 April 2025, there has been uncertainty about how businesses should comply, particularly given established practices in some industries. For example, online retailers have historically shown prices exclusive of such delivery charges. Many businesses have therefore been awaiting the CMA's final position. The CMA has clearly incorporated feedback from businesses and industry associations, removing some of the unworkable ideas from previous drafts. The guidance also includes many practical examples for businesses, although it notes that these are non-exhaustive and other compliance approaches may be acceptable.

However, we anticipate that many businesses will need to make compliance changes in the coming months in order to avoid future enforcement action. The CMA has indicated that for at least the next three months (so, until mid-February 2026), it plans to support businesses and monitor compliance rather than take enforcement action, except for breaches that were clearly prohibited under the April 2025 Unfair Commercial Practices guidance. This gives businesses some time to assess and implement necessary changes. However, three months is a short period, especially with the upcoming Christmas period (which will be a peak time of year for certain businesses) and if compliance requires extensive technical work, such as changing website pricing logic. After mid-February, enforcement is possible, given that the CMA has previously said that it will enforce in areas where guidance is available to businesses.

We recommend that consumer-facing businesses in all sectors, especially retail, events, and travel, review the guidance and consider whether it necessitates compliance changes.

If you would like to discuss the guidance or another consumer law issue, please do not hesitate to contact one of our specialists.