In Competition… Competition & Public Procurement Law: March 2026 Update
April 2026Welcome to the eighth edition of In Competition.
March 2026 was a high-impact month for UK competition enforcement and public procurement policy. The CMA combined expansive consumer protection interventions with traditional antitrust enforcement, while procurement reforms continued to reposition public spending as a lever for industrial and social policy. At EU level, the courts delivered important guidance on socially weighted procurement, and digital enforcement activity continued to build momentum.
This update summarises key competition law, merger control and public procurement developments mostly from March 2026, alongside selected international highlights.
CMA and Consumer Enforcement Highlights
CMA signals algorithmic collusion as an enforcement priority
In March, the CMA made clear that algorithm‑driven collusion is now a priority enforcement risk. This was signalled through the CMA’s 2026-27 Annual Plan (published 23 March) and a CMA technology blog post (4 March), which together set out how the Authority intends to detect, investigate and enforce against competition risks arising from AI, pricing algorithms and shared data tools.
The CMA warned that it is “actively scanning markets” for algorithm‑enabled price fixing or information sharing, including scenarios where there is no traditional cartel agreement. This policy stance is reflected in live enforcement activity: on 2 March, the CMA opened a cartel investigation into suspected hub‑and‑spoke collusion in the hotel sector, where major hotel groups are alleged to have shared competitively sensitive pricing information via a third‑party data analytics provider.
Crucially, the CMA also set out how it will use AI in its own enforcement work, including:
- a tailored mergers intelligence tool that gathers and analyses external data to identify potentially problematic transactions in a voluntary‑notification regime;
- AI‑enabled detection of bid‑rigging in public procurement, aimed at identifying collusive tendering patterns and delivering public‑sector savings;
- customised agentic AI to detect consumer harms at scale, alongside the CMA’s Internet Lab, which simulates consumer journeys and captures forensic‑grade evidence; and
- broad AI‑enabled horizon scanning of emerging technologies and market developments, feeding into Technology Horizon Scans and thematic deep‑dive reports.
Why does this matter?
This is an important doctrinal and practical signal rather than a single legal decision. The CMA is explicitly testing how Chapter I prohibitions apply to new fact patterns, including tacit coordination facilitated by algorithms, shared pricing tools and common data hubs. At the same time, the Authority is materially upgrading its own detection capabilities, reducing reliance on complaints or whistleblowers. The risk is not confined to Big Tech. Any business using automated pricing, AI‑driven analytics or shared benchmarking tools – including insurers, construction firms using bid‑pricing software, and professional services providers – should ensure those systems do not reduce competitive uncertainty. The CMA has made clear that the absence of a human agreement will not, by itself, provide a safe harbour.
CMA vet & dental interventions – signals for civil engineering study
On 24 March, the CMA concluded its veterinary services market investigation, finding weak competition driven by opaque pricing and “lock‑in” practices. It imposed 15 binding remedies (from mandatory price lists online to caps on certain fees) aimed at empowering customers through transparency. Earlier, on 5 March, the CMA launched a market study into private dentistry, citing rising private fees and limited patient choice. Both moves target information asymmetry and incumbency advantages: in vets and dentistry, customers struggle to compare options or switch providers, leading to higher costs and entrenched players.
Why does this matter?
These interventions offer a preview of the CMA’s approach to fixing markets – including the ongoing Civil Engineering market study (roads and rail). The CMA’s playbook is clear: shine a light on complexity and level the playing field. In construction and infrastructure, that likely means recommendations for greater transparency in project pipelines and costs, simpler procurement processes to lower barriers for new entrants, and fairer risk allocation so smaller contractors can compete. The CMA’s civil engineering study has already flagged issues like burdensome tender requirements, short-term funding cycles, and risk pushed down supply chains as dampening competition. We should expect remedies focused on better information and process – for example, publishing clear forward pipelines and benchmarking data, standardising or simplifying accreditation and insurance demands, and incentivising clients to reward long-term value over lowest up-front price.
The CMA has shown it will impose radical transparency and behavioural measures if needed – getting ahead of those expectations now will leave you far better placed when the spotlight turns (back) to roads and rail.
CMA launches enforcement blitz on fake and biased online reviews
On 27 March, the CMA opened five new consumer law investigations, the third wave using its new DMCCA powers, targeting suspected manipulation of online reviews across sectors including food delivery, car sales and funeral services.
Targets include Just Eat (alleged inflation of restaurant star ratings), Autotrader (alleged suppression of negative reviews via third‑party moderation), Dignity (possible self‑reviewing by staff) and Pasta Evangelists (discounts offered in return for five‑star reviews).
Why does this matter?
This is the CMA’s first major deployment of its new fining powers for unfair commercial practices, carrying penalties of up to 10% of global turnover. Buying reviews, cherry‑picking feedback or obscuring negative opinions are now clearly classified as banned practices. The CMA has moved from guidance and warnings to active enforcement. Businesses should urgently audit review collection, moderation and ranking processes, including the use of algorithms and third‑party vendors, to ensure compliance. If the CMA finds an infringement, it can require a business to change its practices, give commitments about future conduct and impose substantial fines.
UK Competition Investigations and Merger Control
Hotel sector cartel investigation
The CMA has confirmed it has opened a cartel investigation into suspected unlawful information sharing in the hotel sector. Major hotel chains, including Hilton, IHG and Marriott, are suspected of exchanging competitively sensitive pricing information via an intermediary data provider.
Why does this matter?
This hub‑and‑spoke investigation underlines the CMA’s focus on platform‑enabled collusion. Exchanges of future pricing or occupancy data, even indirectly, can infringe competition law if they reduce market uncertainty. Companies using benchmarking services or trade association surveys should review anonymisation, aggregation and governance safeguards.
Competition Litigation and Collective Actions
Court of Appeal blocks opt‑out competition claim against water companies
On 5 March 2026, the Court of Appeal in Roberts v Severn Trent Water ([2026] EWCA Civ 222) upheld the Competition Appeal Tribunal’s refusal to certify a proposed opt‑out collective action against six major water companies. The claim alleged an abuse of dominance through systematic under‑reporting of pollution incidents, said to have led Ofwat to set overly generous price controls and consumers to overpay.
The Court held that the claim was barred by section 18(8) of the Water Industry Act 1991. Although misleading a regulator can in principle amount to an abuse of dominance, the alleged harm here depended fundamentally on breaches of licence conditions governing regulatory reporting. As a result, the remedies sought were available only “by virtue of” a regulatory contravention and were excluded.
Why does this matter?
The decision draws a boundary between competition law and sector‑specific regulation. It limits the ability to re‑frame regulatory compliance disputes, particularly around price controls, as private competition claims, including collective actions. For regulated monopolies, the judgment reinforces section 18(8) as a powerful shield; for claimants and funders, it highlights the difficulty of pursuing competition claims where alleged harm flows entirely through a statutory regulatory regime.
Public Procurement Law
Government response: procurement reforms to boost UK industry and resilience
On 26 March, the Cabinet Office published the Government’s response to the “Growing British Industry, Jobs and Skills” consultation, outlining further procurement reforms under the Procurement Act 2023. The response sets out measures including mandatory 3-year SME/VCSE spend targets for large contracting authorities (annual spend over £100 million), stricter prompt payment rules (with potential exclusion of suppliers who exceed 60-day invoice payment averages on major contracts), a new “public interest” test before outsourcing high-value services (to consider in-house delivery for contracts above £5 million), proposed Ministerial powers to safeguard critical sectors (allowing direct awards to “trusted” UK suppliers for strategic goods, works or services), and enhanced social value requirements – for example, a standard 10% minimum weighting on jobs/skills criteria in large procurements, mandatory social value KPIs, and use of a streamlined national metrics list.
Why does this matter?
These proposals show public procurement being steered towards industrial strategy and economic security goals, not just value for money.
Construction and infrastructure suppliers should expect greater scrutiny of supply-chain practices: Tier 1 contractors may need to demonstrate meaningful SME participation, prompt payment to subcontractors, and delivery of social value commitments as key performance metrics. SMEs and regional firms stand to gain improved access to public contracts (helped by transparency on public spend and SME spend targets), but will still need to compete on enhanced criteria like skills development and local impact. Contracting authorities are likely to face new duties (for example, justifying outsourcing decisions through a published insourcing test and reporting on local job creation) which will require cultural and process shifts but could also simplify certain processes (like using standard social value criteria). The direction of travel is a procurement regime that explicitly aims to support UK industry, skills and supply-chain resilience, aligning with the Construction Playbook’s emphasis on fair risk-sharing and long-term value, and echoing issues flagged in the CMA’s civil engineering market study (e.g. the need for clearer pipelines, better risk allocation, and easier entry for new players). Importantly, none of these changes are immediate or guaranteed; any new rules will require further guidance or legislation and Parliamentary time. Nevertheless, the policy momentum is strong.
Construction businesses (and their insurers and funders) would be prudent to prepare now by tracking and improving their SME engagement and payment performance, gathering data to evidence social value in projects, and reviewing bid strategies in light of potential “UK resilience” preferences. However, this may be controversial and must be balanced against the UK’s duties not to disadvantage suppliers from the signatory states of the WTO Government Procurement Agreements or those other states with whom the UK has signed trade agreements (e.g. Japan).
CJEU endorses socially weighted procurement award criteria
On 5 March, the Court of Justice of the European Union upheld the use of procurement award criteria favouring bidders offering staff pay above sectoral collective agreement minimums (Case C‑210/24). The Court confirmed such criteria are compatible with EU procurement law and fundamental freedoms.
Why does this matter?
The judgment confirms that “social value” considerations, such as better pay and employment conditions, may be treated as indicators of economically advantageous tenders. Authorities enjoy significant discretion to incorporate social objectives into award criteria, and bidders must be prepared to evidence workforce benefits as part of competitive strategies. The green-light from the Luxembourg Court may embolden contracting authorities towards more ambitious award and selection criteria in favour of improving employee conditions.
Wales implements new socially responsible procurement regime
We stay with the theme of social objectives in public procurement. In late March, Wales brought into force the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Regulations 2026, implementing the Social Partnership and Public Procurement (Wales) Act 2023.
Legally, these are the first implementing regs under that Act, which impose unique Welsh social duties on procurement. They define which contracts are “particularly socially responsible” and mandate annual reporting on fair work and well-being outcomes. It’s significant doctrinally as it diverges slightly from England’s regime (adding an extra layer of statutory social obligations in Wales).
For companies bidding in Wales (construction firms, service providers, etc.), this means additional compliance: e.g. demonstrating fair work (e.g. real living wage, no blacklisting, etc.) and how they promote things like the Welsh language or equality. Authorities in Wales will be scrutinising tenders for those elements now backed by law. In practice, this raises the entry requirements for suppliers, but also could advantage those already following high employment standards.
Why does this matter?
Wales is layering distinct social obligations, such as fair work requirements and promotion of the Welsh language, onto the UK procurement regime. While procedures remain aligned with the Procurement Act, social obligations are increased. Suppliers active in Wales should adapt bidding strategies and internal policies accordingly.
Concluding thoughts
March 2026 highlights how competition and procurement tools are increasingly being used to shape markets, not merely police them. The CMA has demonstrated a readiness to intervene decisively in consumer‑facing sectors, while procurement policy is being leveraged to advance industrial, social and regional objectives. For businesses, the twin imperatives are clear: strengthen compliance and governance, while identifying the opportunities created by SME‑friendly reforms, socially weighted tenders and coordinated cross‑border enforcement.
If you would like to discuss any of the issues raised in this update, please contact Paul Henty or Charlie Bayliss.
Download PDF
