On 15 April 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) imposed its first financial penalty for a breach of consumer law using its new enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA). By ordering Automobile Association Developments Limited (AADL), (trading as the AA Driving School and BSM Driving School), to pay a £4.2 million financial penalty and provide approximately £760,000 in consumer redress, the CMA has provided an early indication of how they will apply their powers in practice, particularly in relation to online pricing.

The infringement concerned the online sale of driving lessons. AADL initially displayed lesson prices to consumers that did not include a mandatory £3 booking fee, which appeared only at a later stage of the checkout process. The CMA concluded that this constituted unlawful “drip pricing”, as the booking fee was unavoidable and should therefore have been included in the headline price from the outset.

While the booking fee was modest, the CMA’s concern is not limited to the value of the charge. In the CMA’s view, drip pricing obscures price clarity at the point when consumers are making decisions. By showing an incomplete price at the start of the purchase process, drip pricing makes it harder for consumers to compare options on a like-for-like basis and increases the likelihood that they proceed with a purchase once they have invested time and effort. The CMA has also previously highlighted that these practices can distort competition between businesses and impact the effective functioning of markets more broadly, by replacing traditional parameters of competition with opaque pricing practices. 

The CMA confirmed that the £4.2 million fine reflects a 40% settlement discount for cooperation and early resolution. The undiscounted penalty would therefore have been materially higher (£7 million). While the fine sits well below the statutory maximum of up to 10% of global turnover, it is notable given the nature of the conduct and the size of the individual £3 fee. It also is significantly greater than the amount AADL has been asked to refund to customers. This underscores the CMA’s position that “it will never pay to break the law or treat consumers unfairly”, and that the new regime is intended to deliver meaningful deterrence. It will be interesting over time to see the CMA’s approach to fines develop: it is certainly arguable that this penalty is steep for the presentation of a fee. 

In addition to the fine, the CMA required AADL to refund more than 80,000 learner drivers, with total redress of around £760,000, equating to an average repayment of approximately £9 per customer. These refunds will be made automatically, without consumers having to come forward to claim them. Consumer compensation therefore represents an integral part of the outcome rather than a supplementary measure, reflecting the CMA’s stated intention to deliver concrete, consumer-facing remedies alongside enforcement action. And in future cases involving potentially larger individual fees, it seems likely that consumer redress will become an increasingly significant part of the enforcement picture. 

The investigation was opened in November 2025 as part of a wider, cross‑economy review of online pricing practices. The case then progressed from opening to decision in approximately five months, a significantly shorter timeframe than is typical for competition law enforcement cases.  That speed was likely supported by a combination of factors, including the agreement to settle and provide redress. In addition, cases in this area involve relatively clear, rules‑based assessments of consumer-facing behaviour such as whether mandatory fees are included upfront – rather than complex market definition or effects‑based analysis which is more common in competition law proceedings. 

As at April 2026, the AADL decision remains the only concluded infringement under the CMA’s new consumer enforcement regime. Of the investigations opened by the CMA since April 2025, a further 13 remain live (seven of which are related to online pricing, five of which relate to online ratings, and one investigation in respect of subscriptions and exit fees).