CMA backs proposed reforms to competition enforcement pace, redress powers, and regulatory appeals in response to BIST consultation
On 25 September 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published its response to the Department for Business, Innovation, Science and Trade (BIST) consultation titled 'Swifter and Simpler Competition Redress, Regulatory Appeals and Competition Enforcement'. The CMA's 31-page response is described as overall supportive of the reforms proposed. The CMA's response addresses four areas: proposals to give the CMA powers to direct redress schemes for consumers harmed by competition law breaches; enhanced civil-damages protection for Type A immunity applicants (companies that are first to report a cartel and receive leniency); simplifying and harmonising regulatory appeals across sectors; and making enforcement under the Competition Act 1998 more efficient. The CMA framed the proposals as aligned with its own internal reform programme, which it describes as focused on four dimensions: pace, predictability, proportionality, and process. The regulator said the reforms would help ensure the competition regime operates in a way that is efficient, effective, and supportive of economic growth. The full response document runs to 31 pages and was published alongside the consultation page on gov.uk.
Why this matters
These reforms, if enacted, would materially change the toolkit available to the CMA and to private claimants in UK competition enforcement. The power to direct redress schemes would give the CMA a faster route to consumer compensation without requiring claimants to bring standalone damages actions. Strengthened civil-damages protection for leniency applicants (those who self-report cartels under the immunity programme) is designed to make cartel whistleblowing more attractive, which over time should increase the number of infringements the CMA uncovers. The harmonisation of regulatory appeals across sectors would reduce the current patchwork of appeal standards that creates inconsistent outcomes depending on whether a case falls under telecoms, energy, or financial services regulation. Together, the reforms signal a CMA that is actively lobbying government to be given the tools it has long said it needs.
On the Ground
The reforms activate competition law advisory work (advising clients on leniency applications and the revised civil-damages protection), regulatory appeals practice (harmonised appeal routes matter to firms advising regulated industries), and private damages litigation (redress scheme powers generate new settlement and claims-management work). The Competition Act 1998 leniency regime is already a significant instruction source for magic circle and US firms in London. Trainees would be assisting with regulatory notification drafting, preparing compliance gap analysis memos comparing the proposed regime to current practice, and updating remediation trackers for clients navigating existing CMA investigations under the evolving framework.
Interview prep
Question you might get
“How would the proposed power to direct redress schemes change the incentives for businesses that have been found to have infringed competition law, compared with the current private damages litigation route?”
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