The UK Competition and Markets Authority announces its first ever fine under new consumer enforcement powers

Key takeaways

• The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced on 13 February 2026 that it has fined Euro Car Parks nearly half a million pounds for failing to respond to information notices. This represents the first financial penalty under its new fining powers introduced by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCC).
• The CMA concluded that failing to comply with information notices because a company believed that they were a scam, or that they were sent to a director not involved in daily operations, does not constitute a reasonable excuse.
• The fine was issued before any substantive investigation had even commenced, signalling a robust and proactive enforcement approach to enforcing consumer protection rules. An equivalent approach is expected in relation to the competition rules.
• Businesses in receipt of information requests are now under significantly heightened compliance risks and should promptly engage with the CMA as well as seeking legal advice.

Euro Car Parks failed to provide a reasonable excuse for non compliance

In July 2025, the CMA issued Euro Car Parks (ECP) with an information notice under the Consumer Rights Act 2015. Despite seven attempts to deliver by registered mail, by hand and by email to company directors, ECP did not engage with the CMA.

ECP only provided a response after the CMA notified it of an intention to impose a fine. ECP had attempted to justify its lack of response:

1. Defective service – ECP said that as the information notice was addressed to a director who was not involved in the day to day management of ECP and not the company secretary or general counsel, the service was defective. ECP later conceded that the information request was validly served and that the absence of the director from the UK did not relieve ECP of its responsibility to comply.
2. Belief that the information notice was a scam: ECP claimed that some employees believed the CMA’s letter and emails were fraudulent and attempts to scam the company. ECP cited the use of exclamation marks, urgent language, and repeated references to “Classification Official” and “Official Sensitive” as indicators of suspicious authenticity. As a result, ECP blocked the CMA’s email and ignored the letters.

The CMA rejected these explanations and concluded that ECP had no “reasonable excuse” for failing to comply. It was incumbent upon ECP, as an organisation, to ensure that official correspondence is properly managed and that statutory obligations are met in a timely manner. The CMA noted that multiple attempts to contact ECP would be unusual for a scam and ECP took no action to verify with the CMA.

In December 2025, the CMA issued a fine of £473,000. Under the DMCC, the CMA may impose penalties of up to 1% of a company’s annual worldwide turnover for non-compliance with information notices. The £473,000 penalty represents approximately 75% of the maximum fine available, reflecting the egregiousness of ECP’s actions.

ECP sought an injunction in the High Court to stop the CMA from naming it. The Court refused the application in early February. ECP has also appealed the fine to the High Court.

Analysis

In November last year, the CMA opened its first consumer enforcement cases against eight major UK companies (see our commentary here). In a recent speech, the Acting Executive Director of Consumer Protection announced that the CMA had issued 29 targeted information requests to businesses. The penalty against ECP, imposed before an investigation was even opened, highlights the CMA’s continued efforts under its enhanced consumer protection powers. It is also another example of the implementation of CMA’s “4Ps” agenda as it seeks to encourage “pace, predictability, proportionality and process” across the CMA’s portfolio of competition and consumer work.

Other broader policy shifts towards stronger consumer protection include proposed changes to merge separate legal tests for market studies and investigations into a unified “adverse effect on consumer” standard (see our recent article). See here for more commentary on the DMCC and how our experts can help.