A trader must not get a consumer to make a transactional decision through misleading or unfair commercial practices.
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 now contains the principal unfair-commercial-practices regime for consumer transactions, replacing the older Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations for relevant conduct from 6 April 2025. The rules cover misleading actions, misleading omissions, aggressive practices and specified practices that are banned outright.
The practical question is not merely whether an advert contained a false sentence. Omitting material information, presenting price information deceptively, creating false urgency or using fake reviews can also be significant.
Key points
- A statement can mislead even if some literal words are technically true.
- Material information can be misleadingly omitted or hidden.
- The consumer’s resulting “transactional decision” can include decisions before, during and after purchase.
- Private remedies and public enforcement are separate; not every regulatory breach produces the same individual remedy.
Misleading actions
These can involve false or deceptive information about the existence, nature, main characteristics, price, trader, consumer rights or other material aspects of a product. Context and overall presentation matter.
Misleading omissions
A trader can mislead by leaving out material information, hiding it, providing it unclearly or too late. A low headline price that conceals unavoidable charges until the end of checkout is an obvious type of problem.
Aggressive and banned practices
Pressure, harassment, coercion or undue influence can make a practice aggressive. The legislation also identifies commercial practices that are prohibited in all circumstances, so current CMA guidance is useful when the conduct resembles fake reviews, false scarcity or other specified behaviour.
The main unfair-trading regime changed on 6 April 2025.
For commercial practices taking place from 6 April 2025, Chapter 1 of Part 4 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 is the central unfair-commercial-practices regime. It replaced and updated the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 for new conduct, while transitional rules preserve the older regime where relevant.
The current law prohibits misleading actions, misleading omissions, aggressive practices and conduct contrary to professional diligence where the statutory tests are met. It also lists practices that are unfair in all circumstances. The 2024 Act introduced or made more explicit rules concerning matters such as fake reviews and drip pricing.
A misleading action is more than a statement you dislike.
The question is whether the commercial practice contains false information or otherwise deceives (or is likely to deceive) the relevant average consumer about specified matters and is likely to cause a transactional decision they would not otherwise have taken. A “transactional decision” is broad and can include decisions before, during or after the contract, not just the final click to buy.
Examples can include false claims about product characteristics, availability, trader status, consumer rights, price advantages or the need for a service. Artificial countdown timers, false scarcity claims and invented “was” prices can become relevant where they create a misleading impression that changes consumer behaviour.
Omissions and pricing presentation matter too.
A trader can mislead by leaving out material information, hiding it, presenting it unclearly or too late, depending on the statutory route. Invitations to purchase carry specified material-information requirements. Since April 2025 the DMCC regime also expressly addresses drip pricing: mandatory charges should not be revealed only after a consumer has been attracted by an incomplete headline price.
The CMA’s current guidance emphasises overall presentation. Information technically present behind an easily missed link or buried in small print may not cure a misleading overall impression.
Some practices are banned without needing the usual impact test.
Schedule 20 contains 32 commercial practices that are considered unfair in all circumstances. Current law includes specific controls around fake consumer reviews, including submitting or commissioning fake reviews, concealing incentivisation and publishing reviews or review information in specified misleading ways. Other banned practices cover areas such as false trust marks, certain bait tactics and falsely creating the impression that a consumer cannot leave premises until a contract is formed.
Do not quote the “banned list” loosely. Match the evidence to the exact practice. If conduct does not fit a per-se banned practice, it may still fall within misleading, aggressive or professional-diligence provisions.
Private redress and enforcement are not the same thing.
Trading Standards and the CMA can enforce unfair-commercial-practices law, including through the strengthened DMCC enforcement regime. A report to an enforcer can therefore be useful where conduct appears systemic, but it does not automatically obtain an individual refund.
Private rights of redress for misleading or aggressive practices remain subject to transitional machinery. Section 252 preserves Part 4A of the former 2008 Regulations for consumer redress until regulations under section 233 of the DMCC Act come into force. That is a technical area: if you are seeking to unwind a contract, obtain a discount or claim damages specifically on unfair-trading grounds, check the current redress provisions rather than assuming every DMCC prohibition creates the same direct consumer remedy.
Keep the sales journey.
Screenshots, adverts, checkout pages, countdown timers, price progression, review displays, telephone recordings and follow-up messages can be decisive because the issue is what the consumer was told or shown at the time a decision was made.
Common trader responses.
| Response | What to examine |
|---|---|
| “The correct information was in the terms.” | Was the overall presentation still misleading? Was material information sufficiently clear and prominent at the decision point? |
| “The timer was only marketing.” | If it conveyed false urgency or scarcity and influenced decisions, calling it marketing does not resolve the legal issue. |
| “The fee was disclosed before payment.” | Mandatory fees introduced late can still engage the current price-transparency/drip-pricing rules. |
| “Reviews are users’ responsibility.” | Publishers of consumer reviews have specific obligations under the current fake-review regime. |
| “You could have asked us.” | Where the law requires material information to be supplied, the burden is not necessarily shifted to the consumer to discover it. |
Frame the complaint around the decision it changed.
Useful wording
“The representation/omission I rely on is [exact statement or missing information]. I saw it on [date/place]. It caused or was likely to cause the transactional decision to [buy/pay/renew/not cancel]. Please preserve the relevant advert, webpage and account records and explain the factual basis for the representation.”
Advertising complaints
Use the ASA for the advert, and a separate route for your remedy.
The Advertising Standards Authority can assess many misleading, harmful, offensive or irresponsible advertisements under the CAP and BCAP Codes. It may require advertising to be amended or withdrawn, but it does not normally order the trader to refund you or pay compensation.
Keep both routes moving.
- Preserve the whole advert, including the platform, date, images, claims, qualifications and small print.
- Use the ConsumerWise ASA guide to check remit and prepare the advertising complaint.
- Complain separately to the trader and use any applicable card, ADR, ombudsman or court route for your individual loss.
- Do not let an ASA complaint delay a chargeback, scheme or court deadline.
In practice
- Save the advert, product page or checkout flow as it appeared when you made the decision.
- Identify what you were led to believe and what fact later proved different.
- Explain how the representation or omission influenced the purchase, cancellation or other decision.
What to do
A practical next-step plan
- Capture screenshots before the trader changes the page.
- Write down the decision you made because of the representation.
- Compare the representation with the contract, product or later evidence.
- Ask the trader for a remedy and explain the misleading element precisely.
- Report systemic unfair practices to the appropriate enforcement body where useful.
Common traps
Things that often confuse the issue
- Do not rely on memory alone when online content can be preserved.
- A disclaimer may not neutralise a prominent misleading headline.
- Advertising enforcement and your individual contractual remedy are related but not identical questions.
Evidence worth keeping
Pre-selected paid extras: the consumer must genuinely choose them
A trader should not quietly add an optional paid service by pre-ticking a box or otherwise selecting it by default. The CMA’s current online-selling guidance says optional extras require the consumer’s express agreement. In June 2026 the CMA ordered Marks Electrical to refund nearly 40,000 customers and imposed a £720,000 penalty after finding that customers had been automatically opted into paid additional services.
Keep the basket, checkout screenshots, order confirmation and invoice. The practical question is whether you actively chose the extra: not whether it was technically visible somewhere on screen.
Fake urgency and countdown clocks
Schedule 20 of the DMCC Act treats falsely stating that a product or particular terms are available only for a limited time as an always-unfair practice where it is used to force an immediate decision. The CMA’s own example is a countdown that expires and simply restarts.
In May 2026, Emma Sleep admitted using misleading countdown timers, false high-demand messages and discount claims, with the High Court endorsing the settlement. That does not mean every countdown is unlawful: a genuine limited offer can be legitimate. Preserve repeated screenshots showing the timer resetting, the same “ending today” price returning, or demand messages that create a false impression of scarcity.
Artificial discounts and reference prices
A “was/now”, “50% off” or “special offer” claim can be misleading if the reference price does not create a genuine comparison. Do not reduce the complaint to “the discount looked fake”. Capture the dates, the higher reference price, the selling price over time, the wording of the claimed saving and whether a substantially similar offer immediately replaced it.
The Government announced in August 2026 that it intends further action on deceptive discount claims. For a present dispute, base the complaint on the commercial practice that actually occurred and the current DMCC unfair-commercial-practices framework rather than citing a future reform as though already in force.
Official sources
Check the rules behind this guide
- Advertising Standards Authority: make a complaint
- Unfair commercial practices CMA207: GOV.UK
- Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024: legislation.gov.uk
- Price transparency CMA209: GOV.UK
- Fake reviews guidance: GOV.UK
- Getting consent for additional charges: CMA
- Marks Electrical enforcement: CMA
- Emma Sleep enforcement: CMA
These are official or primary sources for this topic. Rules, scheme terms and deadlines can change, so check the live source before relying on a formal time limit or procedure.
Advertising and redress
Use the ASA and trader routes for different outcomes
The ASA can assess advertising within its remit. Your refund, cancellation, compensation or contract claim usually stays with the trader, payment provider, ADR body or court.