UK centric deals remain a priority for the UK Competition Markets Authority

There was a reduction in merger enforcement by the CMA in 2025—reflecting a deliberate shift from global transactions (with only tangential relevant to the UK market such as Sabre/Farelogix and Roche/Spark Therapeutics) to focus on UK-centric transactions. In January 2026, the CMA announced an unwinding decision following an ‘own initiated’ Phase 2 investigation and in addition, issued an initial enforcement order in another ‘own initiated’ transaction. This confirms the CMA’s commitment to scrutinising transactions that raise competition issues in the UK. 

Early engagement with the CMA is essential to minimise the risk of the CMA issuing an initial enforcement order or blocking a deal. For transactions that may raise competition concerns in UK markets, proactive communication with the CMA can improve the likelihood of a swift resolution during the Phase 1 review and deliver remedies that are less intrusive for the parties involved.

Restricting the CMA’s jurisdictional tools to review mergers - The ‘share of supply’ test (a 25% overlap between the parties) would be limited to a defined set of criteria (value, cost, price, quantity, capacity and number of workers employed).  This would remove the CMA’s ability to consider ‘some other criterion, of whatever nature’. In addition, the factors the CMA can consider whether the ‘material influence’ test is met (the lowest level of control capable of triggering merger review) will be established in a statutory list, including shareholding/voting thresholds (e.g., at least 15%), board representation/appointment rights, veto rights over strategic decisions, access to confidential information, and commercial/financial/consultancy arrangements. This may benefit deals involving minority investments. However, where a transaction raises competition issues, we expect the CMA will continue to exercise its wide discretion to find a basis for taking jurisdiction.  

Mechanisms to resolve problematic mergers quickly at Phase 1 – At Phase 1, the merging parties will have up to 10 days to propose remedies (up from 5) and the CMA will have up to 20 days (up from 10) to market test the proposed remedies. This supports the CMA’s recent decisional practice (and as reflected in its December 2025 updated mergers remedies guidance) to allow behavioural remedies at Phase 1. For example, Vodafone/Three was cleared with behavioural remedies; the first time the CMA has done so in a 4-to-3 telecoms merger. 

Abolition of the independent decision-making Inquiry Group - Phase 2 merger and market investigation decisions will be taken by a CMA Board subcommittee of senior CMA board members, non-executive directors and non-CMA staff experts. Day to day decisions will remain with the CMA case team. This follows the model currently in place for the digital markets regime introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumer Act 2024. Combined with the proposal to give the Secretary of State a formal role in a wider range of key CMA guidance documents (including for mergers), this could give rise to a risk of political interference. Absent robust checks and balances (e.g. allowing appeal on merit), politicisation of the merger regime could lessen competition, for instance if competitively harmful yet politically attractive mergers are cleared. 

Stronger information gathering and investigation powers into algorithms across competition and consumer protection processes. This includes obligations to provide technical details (e.g. of algorithms) and the results of testing (e.g. of how customers interact with their online offering). The CMA will expect businesses to devote appropriate resources to ensure compliance.  

Markets review reform - Proposal to streamline the current two stage market study and market investigation processes to one single, shorter procedure and to introduce a single legal test of adverse effect on ‘consumers’ (rather than ‘competition’). Remedies to have an automatic expiration and the CMA to review market remedies after 10 year. The condensed review timeline could improve certainty but may result in tougher deadlines for businesses to respond to information requests. 

Carving out Christmas holidays from the statutory timetable. This is in line with other jurisdictions, including the European Commission.