Samantha Tamman, commercial and marketing law specialist at LegalEdge, rounds up recent CMA and ASA enforcement activity and what scaling businesses need to check.
CMA: the power is no longer just on paper
1. The CMA has proven it will use its direct-fining power
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) gave the CMA power to fine businesses directly for unfair commercial practices, up to 10% of global turnover, with no court process required. For a year, that power was largely theoretical. In April 2026, it became real: the CMA fined the AA £4.2 million and ordered refunds of over £760,000 to 80,000+ learner drivers, after a mandatory booking fee was hidden until checkout (‘drip pricing’) – its first substantive fine under the new regime. It has since fined StubHub UK £889,200 for the same practice, with refunds of over £590,000 to 51,000+ customers. An investigation into Viagogo, on the same issue, remains open.
2. What the CMA is targeting
The CMA has said it will focus on more egregious practices where the law is clear. Drip pricing is now a proven enforcement area. The CMA has also opened investigations into fake reviews and pressure-selling and continues to prioritise unfair contract terms.
Scaling businesses are particularly exposed because rapid growth often prioritises conversion over compliance.
3. Algorithmic pricing: no fines yet but active monitoring
The CMA is using AI to detect algorithmic pricing that enables unlawful coordination between competitors. If you run dynamic pricing, know what data it shares and receives, and whether it references competitor prices in a way that could look like coordination. If you can’t explain that clearly, it’s time to review and fix it now.
ASA: fresh guidance on AI Ads, fresh research on disclosure
1. AI-generated ads are judged by the same rules
The ASA published new guidance on AI-generated content and deepfakes in June 2026, confirming the CAP Code is ‘media-neutral’: AI-generated ads face the same standards as any other ad. The guidance draws on past rulings as illustrations. Its ruling against Polyverse Inc (2023) found an AI-generated image socially irresponsible and offensive. Its ruling against Cosmos Oyun Yazilim (2025) found an AI-generated deepfake video, depicting a real celebrity in a fabricated “kissing” clip, harmful and offensive. Its earlier Stripe & Stare ruling confirms that using an automated ad platform doesn’t transfer responsibility, the advertiser remains primarily accountable. “The AI did it” is not a defence. Using an AI-generated likeness of a real person also carries separate personality rights and IP risk, outside the ASA’s remit.
2. Consumers want clearer disclosure
The ASA’s Influencer Marketing Disclosure Report, published February 2026, surveyed 1,900 UK consumers on how they recognise influencer advertising on Instagram and TikTok. Only around half felt confident spotting an ad, and recognition of individual posts ranged from 30% to 83% depending on how clearly it was signalled. Vague labels like #gifted and #thanks performed poorly; “Ad” variants and platform-native labels like “Paid Partnership” and “Commission Paid” performed best. An earlier compliance sweep found only 57% of influencer ads actually met disclosure rules.
Two traps to watch:
- Joint responsibility. This isn’t new, but it still catches businesses out. Brand and influencer, or brand and affiliate, are both on the hook, even if the brand didn’t create the content or control it.
- Beyond the ASA. An ASA ruling isn’t the only consequence for either AI-generated ads or non-disclosure. The same conduct can breach consumer protection law, which the CMA can now enforce directly, with real fines.
Where to start with compliance
Both regulators are moving toward faster, more direct enforcement and increasingly treating this as a joint front. A quick compliance review now costs far less than enforcement later.
We can help. If your business is scaling fast, now is the time to check your consumer-facing practices. Get in touch on info@legaledge.co.uk.
