The Dekagram: 7th September 2026

This week Sarah Prager KC reports on the ongoing CMA investigation into drip pricing, and takes inspiration from a recent trip to the cinema to see The Odyssey when considering the ongoing EC review of the operation of the recast Brussels Regulation.

The Competition and Markets Authority Investigation into Drip Pricing: Who’s in Trouble This Time?

Drip pricing, the commercial practice whereby mandatory charges are omitted from the initial price presented to consumers and only revealed later in the purchasing process, has long been a concern for UK competition and consumer protection authorities. Recently the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) launched high-profile investigations into companies including Trainline, Virgin Atlantic, and Red Driving School, scrutinising whether their pricing practices amount to misleading consumers.

The Law

The legal regime on unfair commercial practices has evolved significantly over time. The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (CPRs), which implemented the EU Unfair Commercial Practices Directive (Regulation No. 29 of 2005), governed drip pricing until relatively recently.

Under the old rules, in Air Berlin Plc & Co Luftverkehrs KG v Bundesverband der Verbraucherzentralen und Verbraucherverbande (C-573/13) the Court of Justice of the European Union held that in computerised booking systems, the final price, including all mandatory fees, must be indicated for each flight as soon as prices are displayed, not merely for the service selected by the customer. Similarly, in Ryanair Ltd v Autorita Garante della Concorrenza e del Mercato – Antitrust (C-28/19) the CJEU held that if fees for services such as online check-in are unavoidable, they must be included in the initial price display. Optional fees may be shown separately, but unavoidable costs cannot be hidden or deferred.

Enforcement domestically within the UK was patchy at best; utterly ineffectual would be another way of putting it. However, as of 6^th April 2025, the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) replaced the CPRs, introducing explicit and robust prohibitions against drip pricing; and since that time the CMA has proven keen to exercise its new powers.

Section 230 of the DMCCA introduces a new, targeted prohibition on drip pricing practices. This provision broadly addresses the failure to include ‘material information’ (most notably mandatory fees and charges) in any ‘invitation to purchase’. Importantly, the Act mandates that, where precise charges cannot be stated at the point of invitation, the method of calculation must nevertheless be disclosed. The definition of an “invitation to purchase” is also extended, capturing both advertising and direct offers.

The Explanatory Notes to the 2024 Act and CMA statutory guidance (CMA207) confirm that while much of the previous law’s substance is retained, the new regime strengthens prohibitions (notably by directly targeting drip pricing and fake reviews) and enhances enforcement powers.

The CMA’s Investigation into Trainline, Virgin Atlantic, and Red Driving School

In May 2024 the CMA announced investigations into Trainline, Virgin Atlantic, and Red Driving School for suspected breaches of consumer protection law, specifically focusing on drip pricing. The investigations centre on whether these companies failed to present the total price, including all mandatory fees, upfront in their invitations to purchase their services. For instance, customers may have been shown a lower price initially, with booking fees only disclosed at a later stage.

The CMA is examining whether Trainline’s online ticket sales systems clearly and prominently display the full ticket price, including any mandatory fees, at the outset of the transaction. The investigation into Virgin Atlantic considers whether the airline’s online booking processes comply with the requirement to disclose all unavoidable fees, taxes, and charges at the point when fares are first displayed. The focus in the Red Driving School investigation is on whether any additional, mandatory fees for driving lessons or test bookings are sufficiently highlighted at the point of initial price indication.

The outcome of these cases may have significant implications for businesses across multiple sectors, particularly those operating online sales platforms, although as noted above the caselaw of the CJEU had already made it plain that drip pricing was unacceptable even under the previous regime. One reason for this is that the CMA can now impose penalties directly, without first seeking a court order. This administrative power is intended to provide more rapid and effective consumer protection, but there is concern among service providers that it amounts to the CMA marking its own homework, and we have yet to see how the new streamlined enforcement procedure will work on a routine everyday level.

Comment

The CMA’s investigations into drip pricing practices at Trainline, Virgin Atlantic, and Red Driving School may indicate a new era under the UK’s strengthened regime for tackling unfair commercial practices. With the DMCCA 2024 now in force and bedded in, the legal landscape is clear, if it were not before: all mandatory charges must be disclosed at the outset, and the CMA has significant powers to enforce compliance and penalise breaches. As these cases progress, they will set important precedents for the interpretation and application of the new law, shaping the future of consumer protection in the UK and (it may be) rendering expensive large group actions alleging unfair commercial practices a feature of the short to medium rather than long term civil procedural landscape.

About the Author

Called to the Bar in 1997, Sarah Prager KC has been listed in the legal directories in travel and personal injury law for many years, and, more recently, listed in aviation as well. Together with Matthew Chapman KC, Jack Harding, Dominique Smith and Tom Yarrow, she co-writes the leading legal textbook in the area, and has been involved in most of the leading cases in the field in the last few decades. She undertakes purely domestic high value personal injury  work as well as cross border work and has a wealth of experience of difficult and sensitive cases, including serious sexual assault and cases involving children.

The European Commission Call for Evidence: Recasting Recast Brussels?

The European Commission has opened a call for evidence to support a planned review of the EU rules on jurisdiction and the recognition and enforcement of judgments in civil and commercial matters. The likely outcome is a legislative proposal amending Regulation (EU) No.1215/2012 (recast Brussels) towards the back end of 2027. Readers may already be asking themselves what this has to do with UK lawyers – read on to find out.

The impetus for the review comes from the Report on the Application of the Brussels Ia Regulation, which found that the Regulation largely meets its goals of legal certainty and streamlined enforcement, but which identified areas needing clarification, simplification and modernisation. For example, the Report noted inconsistent jurisdiction rules for defendants outside the EU, creating what its authors regard as an uneven playing field, and it also referred to the possible simplification of the jurisdictional rules concerning contractual and tort claims as well as of the specific provisions on consumer contracts and particularly collective redress. These conclusions align with stakeholder feedback from the High-Level Forum on Justice for Growth in 2025 and the European Judicial Network. The review will also consider aspects relevant to strategic lawsuits against public participation (known to you and me as SLAPP) and the continued relevance of the European Enforcement Order Regulation (Regulation (EC) 805/2004), which is under separate re-evaluation.

The evaluation will assess the Regulation against five criteria: relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and EU added value (whatever that may be), over its full period and territorial scope, conducted back-to-back with an impact assessment. It will measure the extent to which the Regulation’s core objectives have been achieved in practice and will also identify problems that the initiative could address and highlight opportunities for further simplification, clarification and modernisation of the current rules. It will come as no surprise to practitioners that one of the areas earmarked for particular examination is that of costs, and pleasingly the Commission will be considering the procedural burdens placed on defendants on non-EU countries such as our own jurisdiction. The initiative will also address shortcomings highlighted in CJEU case law, focusing on the arbitration exclusion, the definition of a ‘court or tribunal’, the application of jurisdiction rules under Articles 7(1) and 7(2), and alignment with international instruments.

Three policy options are presented:

(1) a baseline of no change, under which any problems identified would simply fester. This is thought to be unlikely to attract the Commission;

(2) targeted clarification and simplification, streamlining procedural features, addressing digitalisation, and reviewing parallel enforcement mechanisms; or

(3) comprehensive reform, adding substantive amendments such as jurisdiction rules for defendants domiciled in non-EU countries and new rules on collective redress (which is obviously the option most likely to impinge on readers’ practices).

The consultation will run through a twelve week public consultation, together with targeted meetings with Member States, the European Judicial Network, academics and an expert group, and is open to all stakeholders, including legal practitioners.

Comment

Of course, following Brexit, the UK is a ‘third country’ for jurisdictional purposes, so UK-domiciled parties already sit outside the mutual recognition regime contained in recast Brussels. The most significant of the proposals as far as English lawyers are concerned is therefore the review of the jurisdictional rules relating to non-EU defendants, with all that that implies in terms of reciprocity. Could the review be used as a Trojan (or rather Greek) horse to smuggle in a harmonised set of rules, at least to some extent, pending resolution of the continuing Lugano Limbo? Probably not, but it’s an intriguing prospect. Practitioners advising now on jurisdiction clauses, enforcement strategy, and indeed any cross border disputes involving an EU domiciled party should therefore monitor the review carefully and consider responding to the consultation.

See what other stakeholders are saying and have your say at Jurisdiction rules and recognition and enforcement of judgments – Brussels Ia Regulation (review)

About the Author

Called to the Bar in 1997, Sarah Prager KC has been listed in the legal directories in travel and personal injury law for many years, and, more recently, listed in aviation as well. Together with Matthew Chapman KC, Jack Harding, Dominique Smith and Tom Yarrow, she co-writes the leading legal textbook in the area, and has been involved in most of the leading cases in the field in the last few decades. She undertakes purely domestic high value personal injury work as well as cross border work and has a wealth of experience of difficult and sensitive cases, including serious sexual assault and cases involving children.