CMA cracks down on StubHub UK for drip pricing breaches

The question

Why did the CMA take enforcement action against StubHub UK (StubHub) and what does this tell businesses about its crack down on “drip pricing”?

The key takeaway

The CMA fined StubHub £889,200 and ordered refunds of more than £590,000 to 51,350 customers after finding that mandatory fees were not included in the total ticket price shown at the start of the purchase process on StubHub’s website. The CMA took action using its new direct enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) to impose financial penalties for substantive consumer law breaches and secure redress for consumers.

The background

TICKETBIS S.L. (trading as StubHub UK) is a marketplace selling tickets to live events. Following a three-month investigation, the CMA found some customers using StubHub UK were required to pay unavoidable fees for delivery and service that were only added on at the final stage of the checkout process. When mandatory fees are not included in the total price from the start, this constitutes an illegal practice called “drip pricing” as it prevents customers from accurately comparing prices against other businesses.

The DMCCA requires all “invitations to purchase” to include the total price of the product or service, inclusive of all compulsory charges. Invitation to purchase is a widely interpreted term covering everything from early-stage advertising (such as sponsored search engine results) through to all stages of an online purchase journey.

The development

The CMA found that StubHub engaged in drip-pricing between 6 April and 7 December 2025. On 23 June 2026, the CMA announced a settlement and issued a Final Infringement Notice, imposing a £889,200 financial penalty and requiring StubHub to refund the mandatory fees paid by affected consumers. The average payout to customers will be around £10.33 per transaction. The affected customers will not need to take any action: they will be contacted by StubHub and automatically refunded via the payment card used initially. It must also report back to the CMA over the next six months with updates on the refund process.

StubHub received the maximum discount of 40% on its penalty fine because it admitted to breaking consumer law and agreed not to appeal or challenge the decision in court.

Why is this important?

This action is a further sign that the CMA is ramping up its focus on price transparency. It follows other recent enforcement in this area, including action against two AA-backed driving schools, which were ordered to pay a £4.2 million fine and refund more than 80,000 customers in April this year. As the CMA’s Executive Director of Consumer Protection, Emma Cochrane, said: “Our message to businesses is simple: be transparent on costs or risk CMA action”.

Against the backdrop of the CMA’s clear pricing campaign, we should expect to see more companies targeted by the CMA for failing to include compulsory delivery prices, per-transaction charges, and local fees and taxes in their indicative price in advertisements (eg available from £X). Businesses that infringe consumer protection law can face fines of up to £300,000 or 10% of their global turnover, if higher.

Any practical tips?

Drip pricing remains a particularly dangerous CMA landmine for retailers. They would do well to follow the CMA’s 3-step pricing check:

1. Show the total price up front.
2. Include all mandatory charges.
3. If you can’t give a total yet, is it clear how customers can work it out?

They should also consult the CMA’s detailed guidance for information about how to provide clear and accurate pricing information to customers. Although the guidance is not legally binding, it is a strong indication what the CMA will or will not consider an unfair commercial practice when it comes to price transparency.

Be aware of every consumer “invitation to purchase” touchpoint (eg social media advertisements, product pages, basket summaries and checkout price) and check whether any unavoidable charges are excluded from the earliest price a consumer sees. Where fees vary by consumer choice (eg optional delivery methods), businesses should provide a breakdown of optional charges from unavoidable ones and ensure unavoidable elements are always reflected in the initial headline price.

Finally, businesses subject to an investigation should consider the potential benefits of early engagement and settlement with the CMA, including eligibility for penalty reductions.

Autumn 2026