CMA fines Marks Electrical for automatic opt-in breaches

The question

What does the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) investigation into automatic opt-ins tell us about its increased enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA)?

The key takeaway

The CMA continues its quest for ensuring a fair deal for consumers on price transparency. This latest case underlines how default opt ins at additional cost fell clearly within the DMCCA’s remit and why early settlement with the CMA can significantly reduce the ultimate level of the fine imposed.

The background

In November 2025, the CMA announced that it was using its powers under the DMCCA to open an investigation into Marks Electrical (Marks) over default opt-ins that applied when customers purchased products on its website. Customers were offered services including the removal and recycling of their existing appliance and the removal and recycling of the packaging on their new appliance, at an additional cost. The CMA found that these services were automatically selected when the customer completed the online order form, albeit these could be removed if the customer took positive action to deselect them.

The development

The CMA concluded that Marks was in breach of consumer protection legislation - specifically the Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 - for taking additional payments under a contract without obtaining consumers’ express consent to the charges. On 15 June 2026, the CMA published its final infringement notice. Marks admitted the breaches and agreed to engage with an expedited process for the investigation, and a settlement with the CMA. The CMA imposed a fine of £720,000, after applying the maximum discount of 40% in respect of Marks’ admissions and co-operation with the investigation. It also required Marks to establish a further redress scheme totalling some £600,000 to reimburse customers the cost of the services that were automatically selected on their behalf.

Why is this important?

This outcome underscores the importance of the CMA’s new powers under the DMCCA. In this case, Marks’ actions breached legislation that had been in place since 2013, but it was the powers conferred by the DMCCA that led to enforcement action being taken.

Had Marks not co-operated to the extent that it did, the CMA could have imposed a fine of up to £1.2m in respect of a practice that led to some £500,000 in revenue. Indeed, at the end of step three of the CMA’s five-step penalty assessment, the potential fine was as high as £21m, being 18% of Marks’ UK turnover. This was significantly reduced on a proportionality assessment in this case, but it demonstrates the extent of the CMA’s new enforcement powers. The CMA has noted that “penalties are likely to be lower in the initial period of the regime”, as its enforcement powers are limited to breaches occurring after 6 April 2025. It is therefore possible, and perhaps likely, that the fines imposed will increase significantly in the future.

Any practical tips?

Price transparency remains in the CMA’s headlights, and this is yet another example of why businesses should revisit their pricing practices as a priority. From a price transparency perspective, anything that feels odd for the consumer’s transactional journey probably is, and given the CMA’s willingness to flex its new fining muscles, needs an urgent review. The Marks case also highlights the merits of co-operating and/or settling early with the CMA in view of the significant discounts that can be applied to the fines imposed.

Autumn 2026