CMA vet-sector ownership rules face judicial review threat after vets group says softened disclosure wording lets private equity firms obscure ownership
The Progressive Veterinary Association (PVA) has threatened the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) with a judicial review after the regulator softened the ownership disclosure wording in its veterinary sector remedies. The CMA had previously investigated the £6.3bn UK veterinary market and found that pet owners pay on average 16.6% more at large corporate groups than at independent practices. More than 60% of UK veterinary practices are owned in whole or in part by six groups: CVS, Pets at Home, Medivet, IVC, VetPartners (all private equity-backed), and Linnaeus. Following a white paper published earlier this summer, the CMA and government announced remedies including a cap on pet medicine prescription charges at £21 and transparency requirements on practice ownership. However, the PVA says the CMA changed the disclosure language from requiring vets to name the "corporate vet group" to instead requiring disclosure of the "network or group", which the PVA argues allows multinationals to use a local brand name or subsidiary name rather than disclosing the ultimate private equity owner. The CMA has defended the change, saying it consulted widely and that its approach will make ownership links clear through brand-name recognition.
Why this matters
The threat of judicial review of the CMA's own remedies is unusual and signals genuine tension between the regulator's disclosure design and the transparency objectives its own market investigation identified. The core legal issue is whether the softened disclosure standard satisfies the remedial purpose of the CMA's final report, which explicitly found that ownership opacity contributed to consumer harm. If the PVA proceeds, the case would test the limits of the CMA's discretion in implementing remedies and could delay or reshape the new ownership rules across a market that affects millions of UK pet owners.
On the Ground
This matter activates judicial review practice, competition law, and consumer regulation. Counsel for the PVA would need to assess whether the CMA's decision to soften the wording is irrational or unlawful under administrative law principles. Firms advising the large vet groups will be monitoring the outcome closely given that more demanding disclosure requirements would impose compliance costs and potentially redirect consumer choice. A trainee would assist with regulatory notification drafting, help prepare a compliance gap analysis, and review the CMA's consultation responses to build the factual record for a judicial review application.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“On what grounds might the Progressive Veterinary Association seek judicial review of the CMA's veterinary ownership disclosure remedy, and what would they need to show?”
Sign up free to see the full answer
A model answer you can lift into an interview — how to frame this story for a partner.
Sign up freeMy notes
saved