In a speech published by the UK Government, the Competition and Markets Authority framed the UK digital markets regime as an implementation update rather than another statement of intent. The authority’s central argument was that the regime has moved from published roadmaps to live intervention, with search, mobile platforms, cloud services and business software now serving as the first substantial tests of the new framework. Set against the debate prompted by IPPR’s Bottleneck Britain report, the speech argued that concentrated digital markets are not an abstract competition concern. In the CMA’s view, they affect publishers, app developers, software customers, public bodies and households, and the regime should therefore be judged by practical results rather than by the volume of public debate around it.
The speech endorsed the report’s wider proposition that competition policy often receives less serious scrutiny than it warrants. It argued that public discussion still tends to reduce competition enforcement to merger disputes or courtroom clashes, even when the more important question is whether markets remain open enough for new entrants to compete and for customers to switch on fair terms. According to the CMA, one of the more notable findings in the report was that UK firms ranked the market power of large digital platforms above finance and talent as a source of concern. The authority treated that not only as an economic issue, but also, in sectors such as cloud and software, as a matter of resilience and commercial dependency.
The regulator linked its approach directly to the government’s strategic steer and to the CMA strategy for 2026 to 2029. Those documents ask the authority to act in a way that is swift, predictable, independent and proportionate, while using the digital markets regime flexibly and collaboratively without surrendering operational independence. That framing matters because the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 gives the CMA broad powers, but also expects those powers to be exercised with discipline. The speech said the government’s public response to IPPR was to continue backing the CMA to use its tools as robustly as necessary to improve competition for consumers, businesses and the wider UK economy.
On search, the clearest example of early enforcement is the publisher conduct requirement imposed on Google in June. The CMA presented that measure as a way to improve bargaining conditions for publishers and other content providers, while also giving users clearer information about the material surfaced in Google Search and how to find more of it. In mobile, the same logic extends beyond app developers to payment providers and ordinary smartphone users. The speech pointed to fairer app distribution and access to the iPhone’s NFC chip as areas where regulatory choices could shape whether fintech firms can offer competing tap-to-pay services and whether consumers see a wider range of products at lower cost.
The CMA used business software and cloud computing to make a broader policy case. These services sit behind public procurement, enterprise IT, online retail, banking, streaming and a large share of routine digital administration. Where switching costs are high and interoperability is weak, concentration can raise prices, narrow choice and leave both private organisations and the state more exposed to a small number of providers. That concern becomes sharper as AI tools are added to office software and business systems. The CMA’s investigation into Microsoft’s business software position was described as a route for examining whether licensing practices may be steering customers towards particular cloud providers and whether targeted action is needed so UK organisations can combine services from different suppliers on workable terms. The speech also said the CMA had been advising government on related public procurement questions, reflecting the effect these markets have on taxpayer-funded digital services.
The speech placed heavy weight on flexibility in the design of remedies. Under the UK model, the CMA can use formal Strategic Market Status decisions, conduct requirements, negotiated commitments and other agreed actions, depending on the problem it is trying to solve and the speed at which change can realistically be delivered. That approach is already visible in the current casework. The CMA said it has three conduct requirements in force on Google in search and is consulting on parallel mobile steering requirements for Apple and Google. It also signalled further work on iOS NFC access and on user choice screens in search, arguing that these steps follow the phased plans it published last summer.
The regulator also used commitments where it considered them the quickest workable route. Commitments with Apple and Google on app review, app ranking, data use and an interoperability process took effect on 1 April. In the speech, the CMA said developers had already started using that route and that Apple was due to publish its first annual transparency report on the process later that month, with initial compliance data from both firms expected on the same timetable. The speech was careful not to present commitments as a standard answer. It said simpler and better understood issues may sometimes be resolved in that form, especially in the early stages of a new regime, but it also warned that commitments are only credible if monitoring and enforcement are firm. More contested questions, on this view, may still require formal designation and binding conduct rules.
In cloud, the CMA said a voluntary process with Amazon and Microsoft had already produced changes aimed at improving interoperability and multi-cloud use, while leaving open the option of formal Strategic Market Status action if progress proves insufficient. Cloud licensing, including concerns carried over from the earlier market investigation, is being considered alongside the broader Microsoft business software case. The closing argument was that proportionality should not be mistaken for caution or deference. Under the 2024 Act, the CMA said it should intervene only where the expected benefits outweigh the costs, but it also made clear that participation and consultation do not mean every party will agree with the result. On search choice screens, mobile platform fees and related design questions, the authority expects strong disagreement. Its stated test is whether the final measures are evidence-led, practical and capable of improving competition across the UK economy.