Legal update: first DMCCA fine issued by CMA

On 13 February 2026, the UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced that it had fined Euro Car Parks Ltd (ECP) £473,000 for failing to comply with an information notice under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). This is the first time that the CMA has issued a fine using its new powers under the DMCCA.

The level of the fine demonstrates how seriously the CMA is taking breaches of consumer law, and businesses can't risk falling foul of DMCCA regulations. ECP has appealed the CMA's enforcement notice to the High Court (and the fine will not be payable until the appeal is resolved).

In this article, David Wozniak, associate solicitor in our commercial team, takes a look at the key lessons businesses can learn from the case.

Excuses, excuses

Businesses can escape liability for non-compliance with an information notice if they have a "reasonable excuse". In this case, ECP put forward the following excuses that were rejected by the CMA (these excuses were set out in the CMA's final enforcement notice):

• Excuse 1: Defective service occurred: Firstly, ECP argued that the CMA's failure to serve the notice on its company secretary or managing director (which it considered to be normal CMA practice) rendered service of the notice defective. The CMA had served the information notice on one of the directors who was no longer involved in the company's daily management.
  
  
• Excuse 2: Suspected fraudulent communications: Secondly, various aspects of the CMA's letters and emails caused ECP's officers to suspect that they were fraudulent. ECP explained that it had reached this conclusion based on the use of urgent language and an exclamation mark, the email being sent to multiple email addresses, a warning that unauthorised disclosure could carry legal consequences and the use of "official" and "sensitive" classification markings.

In addition, ECP argued that the fine itself was disproportionate, given the alleged defective service, its suspicions of fraud and its co-operation after receipt of a provisional notice about the fine. But it's important for business owners to know that appealing CMA fines doesn't always mean they're out of the woods.

Failing to respond to CMA notices

The CMA stated that, following the policy set out in its guidance document “Direct Consumer Enforcement Guidance (CMA200)”, it had classified ECP's failure to respond to the information notice as a Category 1 infringement (the highest level of category); and that ECP's lack of response had delayed the CMA's enquiries by nearly two months (which required additional resources). According to the CMA, this justified a fine at 75% of the permitted maximum for this type of breach (1% of worldwide turnover).

This case highlights the importance of ensuring CMA notices are promptly reviewed and acted on by businesses. For more information on the CMA’s new powers under the DMCCA, please see our previous article on major changes to UK consumer law.

To discuss anything covered in this article, or on consumer law in general, contact David Wozniak using 0191 211 7831 or [email protected].