In Competition… Competition & Public Procurement Law: September 2025 Update

Welcome to the third edition of ‘In Competition’.

In the UK, the competition regulator is showing sustained interest in anti-competitive practices in hiring and wage-fixing, a theme likely sharpened by cost-of-living pressures. Employment issues also surfaced in the public contracting sphere, with a recent judgment on whistleblowing protection for a procurement director who exposed poor tendering practices.

AI and algorithms continue to dominate the policy landscape (Ticketmaster’s algorithms came under the CMA’s scrutiny). Regulators continue to warn that algorithmic collusion is fast becoming a live competition concern.

The UK Government has promoted AI as a tool to detect public-sector fraud. In less positive news, the High Court’s October ruling on PPE Medpro highlights the consequences of the state’s rapid procurement decisions during COVID-19, finding serious contractual breaches in a 2020 PPE supply deal. We highlight the possible fallout under the Procurement Act 2023.

Antitrust highlights

CMA guidance on anti-competitive wage fixing and hiring practices

• On 9 September 2025, the CMA released its “Competing for Talent” guide, clarifying how competition law applies to recruitment and retention. It warns against no-poaching agreements, wage-fixing and the exchange of competitively sensitive HR data, and stresses that even firms that do not compete for customers may still compete for labour. It also cautions against the sharing of sensitive, employment related data, even for companies in different industries.
• Why does this matter? This is an area of competition law that often catches companies out. No hire clauses between companies can be commonplace in contracts such as joint venture, bidding or business sale agreements. When buying or selling a business it is important to put safeguards around the sharing of employment-related information accessed in due diligence. The EU, CMA and other competition regulators have brought actions against companies in relation to hiring and salary setting practices.

Ticketmaster pricing practices – CMA commitments

• The CMA required Ticketmaster to make its pricing practices clearer following complaints about hidden or rising ticket fees during the Oasis reunion tour. It found no algorithmic complexity, but that Ticketmaster had relabelled identical tickets as “platinum” and raised prices after initial stock sold out. Under binding undertakings, Ticketmaster must (i) inform buyers 24 hours ahead of tiered pricing, (ii) clarify price increases in queues, and (iii) remove misleading labels. More information can be found here.
• Why does this matter? Though the decision is consumer facing, it illustrates the CMA’s willingness to intervene in pricing practices and demand proactive transparency controls. Firms should note that analogous pricing tactics (e.g. in design, consultancy, subcontracting) risk regulatory scrutiny if they are opaque or dynamically adjusted without clear notice. Whilst Ticketmaster was not penalised for this specific aspect, the case also draws attention to the risks of using algorithms to set prices. This is particularly prominent given the rise in “dynamic pricing”.

UK and Germany – concern over high fuel prices

The CMA’s September update confirms that UK fuel prices remain historically high, with the average petrol price rising 1.9p per litre between May and August 2025. Profit margins for both supermarket and independent forecourts have increased to around 9-10%, prompting government plans for a “fuel finder” scheme by the end of 2025 to help motorists compare local prices. In Germany, the Bundeskartellamt’s October report found regional price differences of up to 20 cents per litre, leading the regulator to call for wider adoption of real-time fuel price apps to boost consumer pressure and competition.

Expert dialogue on AI & market power (June 2025)

On 24 June 2025, the Bundeskartellamt convened an expert group session with industry players across the AI value chain to explore competitive risks in AI markets (data access, platform dominance, lock-in, cloud dependency). While no enforcement followed immediately, the authority is signalling that AI markets are under watch and may well be a next frontier of competition scrutiny.

US and Germany – Google under fire

The search engine giant has drawn flak in several jurisdictions. The US Department of Justice secured an order prohibiting Google from requiring businesses to sign up to its search, browser and AI services on an exclusive basis. Meanwhile, the Bundeskartellamt revealed ongoing investigations against Google for self-preferencing and other practices in relation to a number of its services (search, Google Maps and Automotive Services.)

Public procurement highlights

PPE contract: serious breaches of public contract (Secretary of State for Health and Social Care v PPE Medpro Ltd [2025] EWHC 2486 (Comm) (01 October 2025))

The High Court has ordered PPE Medpro, a company linked to Baroness Michelle Mone, to repay £122 million after finding that the surgical gowns it supplied during the COVID pandemic failed to meet contractually required sterility standards and were unusable by the NHS. Under para 12, Schedule 7 of the Procurement Act 2023, firms may face exclusion or debarment from tendering for public contracts where such breaches are adjudicated.

Record fraud crackdown saves half a billion for public services

The Government has reported that thanks to the use of new technology and artificial intelligence it has prevented over £480 million ending up in the pockets of fraudsters over twelve months since April 2024. Much of the fraud is associated with COVID bounce-back loans. The development is likely to fuel the push for greater deployment of AI in public procurement and subsidy control. More information can be found here.

Whistleblowing warning for procurement teams

The Employment Appeal Tribunal’s decision in Chase v Northern Housing Consortium [2025] shows that raising concerns about expired frameworks, untendered renewals, or misleading auditors can trigger full whistleblowing protection under the Employment Rights Act. The claimant, a procurement director at a central purchasing body, was found to have made protected disclosures after flagging non-compliance with procurement law. The case is a reminder that procurement lapses are not just compliance risks, they’re HR and reputational flashpoints if ignored.

Procurement reform consultation -“Growing British industry, jobs and skills”

The consultation deadline passed on 5 September 2025 in relation to the Government’s further proposed reforms to procurement to align with industrial strategy. Key themes include stronger support for SMEs and VCSEs, incentivising local content, skills and jobs, and enhancing national capability in strategic sectors.

Early data from Procurement Act 2023 implementation

Recently released analysis of the first three months of operation (post go live 24 February 2025) shows marked improvement in procurement transparency, standard notices, and process data availability under the new regime (Open Contracting Partnership). The Open Contracting Partnership has reported that more contract details and performance data are being published than under prior rules, aiding oversight.

If you have any questions about the information discussed, please contact Paul Henty, Deen Taj, and Charlie Bayliss.