The UK Department for Business and Trade has published a consultation on wide ranging reforms to the UK’s competition law regime.
The proposals include reforms to the Competition and Markets Authority’s decision-making structure and merger control jurisdictional tests; as well as further procedural and governance changes.
What’s changing?
As we anticipated in our look ahead to the competition law landscape in 2026, the headline proposal is a significant change to the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) decision-making structure.
This would abolish the CMA’s current independent panel system, under which Phase 2 merger investigations and markets investigations are led by members of an independent panel of experts drawn from a range of business, legal and economic backgrounds. This two-step structure was intended to ensure independence in decision making, but has been criticised as leading to the position where the CMA’s CEO is accountable to Parliament for decisions she can have no involvement in making.
The proposal would replace the panel-led inquiry groups with a sub-committee of the CMA board, as is the structure for decision making in the digital markets regime.
This is intended to align with the objectives of the CMA’s “4Ps” framework by improving pace through more efficient decision making; predictability through greater consistency and direct accountability to the CMA board; and proportionality by allowing the CMA to operate in a targeted and flexible way.
However, there has already been strong criticism by some that the independent panel represents an important “check and balance” on the CMA. Removing it concentrates decision making power in their hands, and some have argued that any such reform should be coupled with changes to the appeal system for mergers, to allow full appeals on the merits, rather than the current judicial review standard. We expect this to be a focus of the consultation responses.
The other key change which was already anticipated is proposed reform to narrow the CMA’s jurisdictional thresholds for merger control, by setting out statutory exhaustive criteria for the application of the “share of supply” test and the “material influence” test. Both of these tests had come in for criticism as being capable of very wide application, and thus causing real uncertainty for business as to whether a transaction fell within the CMA’s jurisdiction or not. Providing greater certainty on these tests is likely to be welcomed.
Other reforms set out in the consultation include a proposal to streamline the markets regime by combining market studies with market investigations into a single “market review tool. This is intended to reduce the overall time that a market could be under review, and is likely to be welcomed by business, although there may be concerns in some sectors over whether the CMA could properly understand a market and devise appropriate remedies in a compressed timetable.
There's also a proposal to give the Secretary of State an expanded formal role in CMA guidance by requiring the CMA to consult with or seek the Secretary of State’s consent to a wider range of guidance than is currently the case. This proposal may cause some concern as representing a further erosion of the CMA’s independence from government.
The overall package is consistent with the programme of procedural and strategic reforms within the CMA that we saw through 2025 aimed at ensuring alignment with the Government’s growth agenda.
What does this mean in practice?
The consultation is open until 31 March 2026. Although many of the proposed reforms had been widely trailed, and benefited from some stakeholder input already, we expect the responses to the consultation to be extensive. The proposed legislative changes will then also have to be debated in Parliament. It, therefore, remains to be seen if all the reforms will ultimately be implemented.
Businesses with experience of CMA processes may wish to take the opportunity to provide their views and attempt to shape the outcomes.
Our content explained
Every piece of content we create is correct on the date it’s published but please don’t rely on it as legal advice. If you’d like to speak to us about your own legal requirements, please contact one of our expert lawyers.