Drip pricing and fake urgency under the DMCC Act

The rule

Since 6 April 2025 the CMA has been able to decide for itself that a business broke consumer law and to fine it, without going to court first. The conduct rules are in Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (the DMCC Act), which replaced the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Three parts of that chapter reach timers, counters and prices.

The CMA’s guidance, CMA207, gives the example this check looks for. A trader tells a consumer an offer will end when a countdown clock runs out, but “when the time runs down, the offer does not in fact end, but continues and the countdown clock restarts.” The guidance adds that if the statement that the offer will end is true, and a substantially similar offer does not appear within a short period, it is unlikely to be a problem.

Stock and popularity claims are not on the blacklist. They fall under the misleading-action test, which section 226 describes as including information that is “true” but “presented in a misleading way”. The CMA’s 2023 open letter to online businesses, written under the older regulations, sets out what it considers misleading. It defines an urgency claim as “any scarcity, popularity, ‘act fast’ or time limited claim”, and gives examples: a checkout timer that restarts when the page reloads, and low-stock claims that are untrue because the trader has no stock shortage.

Drip pricing is covered by the invitation-to-purchase rule. Section 230 requires the “total price of the product”, defined as including any fees, taxes, charges or other payments “that the consumer will necessarily incur”, and says how the price is calculated must be set out with as much prominence as the price itself where it cannot be worked out in advance. CMA207 describes “the practice of showing consumers an initial headline price for a product and subsequently introducing additional mandatory charges as consumers proceed with a purchase” as prohibited, and says leaving out required information is unfair whether or not it changes the shopper’s decision.

On penalties, CMA207 states that infringements of banned practices can lead to compliance directions and monetary penalties of up to the higher of £300,000 or 10% of worldwide turnover, and that most banned practices, though not paragraphs 12, 13 and 30, are also criminal offences.

What PeekWell checks and how

UK-14 asks whether the page’s signs of urgency and its price presentation hold up when looked at twice from outside. The method is the same as for EU-12 and US-08: a clean browser, two loads, a comparison.

The scan loads a public page, records countdown timers and “only N left” counters, reloads, and compares the values. It also notes “N people are viewing” widgets it finds. A timer that returns to the same start, or a counter identical across fresh sessions, becomes an observation with both readings. For pricing, the scan reads the copy on the public pages it visited for signs of drip pricing, meaning mandatory charges mentioned apart from the headline price. The scan also reads cancellation wording on the public pages it visited. That reading is done with a language model and is reported as a pricing signal, not a finding that a charge is hidden. Code decides the reload comparison; the model only helps word the explanation.

The scan has limits, and the report says so. It sees the public pages it visited and nothing behind a sign-in. It does not submit forms, add items to a basket, test passwords or open addresses nobody linked to. Drip pricing is seen at checkout, which a passive scan does not reach, so only the signs on public pages are recorded. It cannot see your real stock or your offer calendar. A Passed means the expected behaviour was observed on the pages scanned. It does not say the site complies.

Why it matters for a company

The CMA now publishes outcomes with fines attached. The first penalty, against the AA, concerned how a price is presented, and the CMA’s pages do not state the size of the companies concerned. On 15 April 2026 it announced that the AA and BSM driving schools, both owned by Automobile Association Developments Limited, would pay £4.2 million and refund more than £760,000, after more than 80,000 learner drivers booking online between April and December 2025 were not shown the complete price upfront. A mandatory booking fee appeared only at checkout. The original penalty of £7 million was cut by 40% for early settlement. On 23 June 2026 the CMA announced a penalty of £889,200 on StubHub UK for adding unavoidable fees at the final stage of checkout, over the period 6 April to 7 December 2025, with refunds of more than £590,000.

Urgency claims reached the courts first. The CMA began its Emma Sleep case in 2022, took court action in 2024 and, on 28 May 2026, announced that the company had given binding undertakings after a High Court order of 22 May 2026. The CMA said Emma Sleep admitted it broke consumer law with misleading countdown timers, false high-demand messages and discount claims. That case was conducted before the new regime began, so it shows how the CMA reads these claims rather than a penalty under the DMCC Act.

For a company, three things follow. The CMA can decide and fine on its own, so the road from a complaint to a penalty is shorter than it was. A fee every customer pays is easy to count, and the refund orders follow the count. And a company that settled early received a discount, so what the CMA treats as cooperation matters.

Smaller companies and larger companies

The Schedule 20 ban and the total-price rule apply whatever the size of the business.

In a small company the problem often arrives with a plugin or a booking tool. A theme adds a countdown to every product, or a booking system adds a service fee on the last screen because the tool was built that way. The owner sees the headline price and rarely walks the checkout as a customer. No decision against a clearly identified smaller company could be confirmed for this article, so the point here rests on how the rule is written and on the CMA’s own guidance, not on a case.

In a larger company the pattern is volume and several teams. A pricing team sets mandatory fees, a merchandising team runs promotions and a third team owns the checkout, and the headline price in advertising is set by a fourth. At that scale a small per-order fee, repeated across tens of thousands of customers, adds up, as the AA and StubHub refunds show.

How to fix it

The aim is that the price a customer sees first is the price they pay, and that every deadline is real. These steps assume a developer with access to the templates and the checkout.

1. Walk the buying path as a customer. From the first price a visitor sees to the last screen before payment, write down each fee that appears.
2. Put mandatory charges in the first price. Section 230 asks for the total price, including any fees the customer must pay. Show that figure from the first screen, or where it cannot be worked out in advance, show how it will be calculated with the same prominence as the price. Keep optional extras out of the total and clearly separate.
3. Tie each timer to a stored end date. The clock should count down to a date held in the promotion record. When the date passes, the offer and the banner end together.
4. Do not restart a deadline for the same offer. CMA207 treats a clock that restarts when the offer continues as the banned practice. If an offer is extended, say so rather than starting the clock again.
5. Source every counter. Stock numbers should come from live inventory, and a “people are viewing” figure needs a real count. Remove any figure you cannot trace.
6. Re-scan. Reload the page several times in a private window and compare the clocks and counters, then run a scan again. The observations should disappear once values follow real dates and real stock.

// Price shown first includes every mandatory fee
const total = basePrice + mandatoryFees.reduce((sum, f) => sum + f.amount, 0);
renderPrice(total, { note: "includes booking fee" });

Whether a particular price display or offer wording satisfies the CMA is a question for your legal adviser, and Peeky reports only what it sees.