The Competition and Markets Authority has published its response to the Department for Business and Trade’s call for evidence on the opt-out collective actions regime, dated 21 October 2025. The CMA states that public and private enforcement should operate in step and sets out positions on concurrent cases, protection for co‑operating businesses, and possible CMA powers to direct redress.
DBT opened its review on 6 August 2025, ten years after the Consumer Rights Act 2015 introduced opt‑out collective proceedings for competition claims in the Competition Appeal Tribunal. The call seeks views on funding, scope and certification, ADR and settlement, and the distribution of funds, with ministers emphasising consumer redress and proportionality.
On matters running in parallel, the CMA warns that if the CAT or High Court hears private claims on the same or closely related issues while a CMA Competition Act 1998 investigation is ongoing, there is a risk of inconsistent outcomes and duplication of public resources. It suggests the tribunal or court consider time‑limited stays, especially where a CMA investigation is at a late stage, while stressing that decisions are case specific.
The authority highlights the role of cartel leniency in uncovering secret conduct and notes existing protections for immunity recipients in Schedule 8A to the Competition Act 1998, including limits on joint and several liability and protections for leniency statements. It proposes going further by granting full civil damages immunity to ‘Type A’ leniency recipients-the first to self‑report-subject to conditions and possible withdrawal where full compensation cannot be recovered from other cartelists.
Under the CMA’s proposal, full damages immunity would apply only where the undertaking has entered into, and continues to comply with, an immunity agreement. The CMA argues this would sharpen incentives to come forward without weakening private redress against other participants and would improve overall detection and enforcement of cartels.
Turning to consumer redress, the CMA points to Competition Act investigations where firms offered commitments that included voluntary ex gratia payments, while noting that voluntary routes are limited in practice and the statutory framework for voluntary redress schemes in the Consumer Rights Act 2015 has not been used.
The authority therefore proposes a discretionary power to direct redress following a final infringement decision in a Competition Act case. It says this could produce faster, clearer outcomes and reduce the need for follow‑on collective actions. The CMA draws parallels with the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, under which Final Infringement Notices may include Enhanced Consumer Measures, including compensation.
The CMA also notes that any new redress power should extend to regulators with concurrent Competition Act powers to avoid different remedies depending on case allocation. For businesses and funders, the package signals a potential shift: earlier incentives to seek Type A leniency, a greater prospect of administrative redress in some cases, and a higher likelihood of stays where private claims overlap with active CMA work.
DBT will analyse submissions from the call for evidence and develop proposals for change, which would then be subject to consultation. Until ministers set out next steps, advisers may wish to reflect the CMA’s published positions in litigation risk assessments, settlement planning and any approach to cooperation.