In Competition… Competition & Public Procurement Law: April 2026 Update
May 2026Welcome to the ninth edition of In Competition.
April 2026 was a practical month, not a theoretical one. The Procurement Act transparency regime moved further into force, with new reporting duties that will change how authorities and suppliers are scrutinised on payment and performance.
On the competition side, the CMA pushed its new digital markets regime forward, publishing its response to stakeholder views on Apple and Google’s mobile platform commitments and finalising commitments that took effect from 1 April. Meanwhile, the CMA’s heating oil market study advanced quickly, with the Authority publishing stakeholder submissions in late April under an accelerated timetable. At EU level, the Commission adopted a revised Technology Transfer Block Exemption regime, while the UK launched a consultation seeking feedback on the legal drafting of its Competition Act 1998 (Technology Transfer Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2026.
Digital Markets and Competition Enforcement
CMA finalises mobile platform commitments for Apple and Google (effective 1 April 2026)
The CMA published the outcome of its call for evidence on proposed commitments from Apple and Google, and its formal response to stakeholder views, alongside final commitments intended to:
- improve certainty for developers on app review, app ranking and use of developer data, and
- to create a structured route for developers to request interoperable access to functionality on iOS and iPadOS.
Why does this matter?
This is the first real operational example of how the CMA intends to use the UK digital markets regime. It also shows the CMA’s preference for securing outcomes at pace through commitments, coupled with a stated readiness to escalate to formal conduct requirements if needed. For UK businesses that distribute products or services through mobile apps, it should translate into more predictable review and ranking processes and a clearer pathway for interoperability requests.
For regulated sectors, including insurance and financial services, the interoperability route is commercially important because access to device functionality can shape product capability and customer experience. The key risk is enforcement credibility, because commitments are only as strong as monitoring and escalation. The CMA has built a reporting architecture designed to make backsliding visible.
Heating oil market study accelerates, with stakeholder submissions published (29 April 2026)
The CMA published a large set of stakeholder submissions in its heating oil market study, following its March launch and an invitation to comment deadline of 8 April. The published responses include consumer bodies and industry participants and form part of a three-month timetable to final report in June 2026.
Why does this matter?
Although this is framed as a consumer-facing essential spend issue, the mechanics are relevant to any market where pricing transparency is weak and switching is difficult. The CMA is running the study under the 4Ps framework, and the volume of submissions indicates it is building an evidence base quickly. For UK suppliers operating in adjacent fuels or logistics markets, the risk is that the study leads to recommendations on price transparency, customer protections, or even a market investigation reference if the CMA concludes competition is not working well. For construction and engineering, this is a reminder that CMA markets tools are being used aggressively in essential services markets, and that evidence-driven remedies can follow quickly.
UK Competition Policy
UK Consultation on the Competition Act 1998 (Technology Transfer Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2026
The assimilated Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation (TTBER) provides a safe harbour from competition law for patent licences, software copyright licences and know-how licences. Based on the EU TTBER, it expired on 30 April 2026 (which, as reported below, has also led the EU to enact a successor regulation). In anticipation of expiry, the UK Government launched a consultation seeking feedback on the legal drafting of the Competition Act 1998 (Technology Transfer Agreements Block Exemption) Order 2026. The government published its response on 26 March 2026.
The Block Exemption Order has largely maintained the current exemption regime, with some limited changes. The limited changes are set to clarify the regime and tailor the block exemption to the UK market. Consistency with the EU approach will be kept where appropriate.
Why does this matter?
Technology transfer agreements cover a wide array of commercial arrangements. In our experience, even lawyers sometimes misclassify these as vertical arrangements which can lead them to miss the applicable principles of competition law. The growth in AI (which makes software coding more accessible) and Software as a Service will expand the importance of this regulation. All companies should therefore be aware of the incoming Block Exemption Order, and the changes from the EU TTBER. Although the changes will be limited, all companies should ensure that they take account of the changes introduced. In particular, companies should be aware of the exemption thresholds and the scope of the block exemption. Watch this space for further analysis on the Block Exemption Order. More broadly, companies should keep a weather eye on their commercial agreements and routinely consider whether these continue to comply with the dynamic principles of competition law.
EU Competition Policy
EU updates competition rules for technology licensing agreements (TTBER) (16 April 2026)
The Commission adopted the revised Technology Transfer Block Exemption Regulation and accompanying Guidelines, with entry into force from 1 May 2026. The main changes concern Data Licensing Agreements and Licensing Negotiation Groups (LNGs). The revised Guidelines cover assessment of data licensing for production purposes and the interaction with Article 101 TFEU. For LNGs, the guidelines explain the possible pro- and anti-competitive effects, distinguishing between genuine LNGs and buyer cartels.
Why does this matter?
For UK businesses licensing technology into the EU, this is directly applicable as the Regulations provide up-to-date rules and guidance. For UK-only businesses, it is still relevant because it establishes the benchmark the UK may align with or diverge from when replacing assimilated block exemptions. The revised guidance addresses exactly the issues that create risk in modern licensing and data-driven collaboration, including how data licensing is assessed and where collective negotiation risks tipping into buyer-cartel territory. Any construction or engineering business involved in software-enabled assets, building information modelling ecosystems, or licensing arrangements around digital twins should assume these concepts will shape competition compliance.
Commission consultation on draft new Merger Guidelines (30 April 2026)
The Commission opened a consultation on the draft of new Merger Guidelines, looking to modernise assessment of mergers by providing a comprehensive, predictable and lasting framework.
Why does this matter?
UK businesses operating in EU markets should expect evolution in analytical emphasis. For sectors with long investment horizons, including infrastructure and energy, changes to how the Commission assesses mergers can materially affect deal risk. The guidelines are binding on the Commission, which cannot depart without justification.
Public procurement law
Procurement Act 2023 transparency obligations: new legislative requirements summary updated (1 April 2026)
The Government Commercial Function updated its summary of the remaining transparency requirements being commenced under the Procurement Act 2023, including sections 69 to 71. The guidance provides an overview of the transparency measures under the new regime, including notice requirements and use of the Central Digital Platform.
Why does this matter?
This is operationally significant for construction and engineering suppliers because it increases the visibility of payment performance and contract delivery information. Increase in transparent information may have a knock-on effect on bid positioning and contract management. It also creates reputational risk and audit trail risk where authorities or prime contractors have weak payment practices. Insurers should expect that greater transparency can translate into clearer causation narratives in disputes, which can increase claims frequency even if it also improves defendability.
Procurement policy direction: “British Goods and Services” and national procurement strategy signals (April 2026)
Two April developments are worth tracking as policy direction. First, the Public Procurement (British Goods and Services) Bill continues through Parliament, aiming to increase reporting and duties around British goods and services and working practices. Second, in April the Government set out procurement strategy themes in Parliament, including using Procurement Act exemptions for national security and introducing an “outsourcing by default” reversal through a public interest test. National security considerations will focus on four critical sectors:
- steel;
- shipbuilding;
- energy independence; and
- AI.
Why does this matter?
These are not yet operational rules, but they point in the same direction as recent reforms: procurement as an industrial policy lever. For construction and engineering, particularly where steel, energy, or critical infrastructure is relevant, the trajectory suggests more explicit policy constraints and reporting expectations. Insurers and funders should anticipate contract terms and KPI structures aligning more tightly with national resilience objectives, which can shift risk allocation and compliance exposure.
Concluding thoughts
April 2026 reinforced three themes. First, procurement law is becoming more transparent and more politically purposeful, with new statutory reporting duties and clearer signals on national interest priorities. Second, the CMA is demonstrating how it intends to use the digital markets regime in practice, with commitments structured around measurable reporting and escalation. Third, EU competition policy remains a moving target, and UK businesses operating cross-border should treat new TTBER and merger guideline consultations as early warning signs for compliance recalibration.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this update, please contact Paul Henty and Charlie Bayliss.
This update includes additional commentary from Nicholas Kenny.
Download PDF
