Italy and Australia offer glimpse of what to expect from new UK consumer laws

Fiona:

Hello and welcome to Ashurst Legal Outlook. In this episode, we'll be looking at the latest changes to the UK's consumer law regime brought about by the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (or the DMCC Act), as well as current enforcement trends in Italy and Australia.

My name is Fiona Garside and I'm a senior expertise lawyer in Ashurst's Antitrust, Regulatory and Trade team in London. I'm delighted to be joined today by Chris Eberhardt, a counsel in our London team.

Chris:

Hi Fiona.

Fiona:

Melissa Fraser, the head of our Australian practice, who's based in Sydney.

Melissa:

Hi Fiona.

Fiona:

And Gabriele Accardo, our partner based in our Milan office.

Gabriele:

Hi Fiona.

Fiona:

Thank you all for joining me.

As I said, we're focusing today on the changes and trends we're seeing in the work of consumer protection law and enforcement. And I think it's fair to say that this is an area which historically has seen quite different levels of focus and enforcement across different jurisdictions, and in part that reflects the differing levels of enforcement powers across these different jurisdictions. So while in jurisdictions such as Australia and Italy, we've seen strong and active enforcement, the enforcement powers in the UK have been relatively weaker, certainly compared to the competition law powers in the UK.

But that's all changing as of 6 April when the CMA's new direct enforcement powers come into force. So to kick things off, Chris, can you remind us what will be changing in terms of consumer enforcement in the UK?

Chris:

Sure, thanks Fiona. The new regime really does represent a significant change to the way consumer law will be enforced in the UK. Essentially, it provides the UK Competition Markets Authority (the CMA) with powers to directly enforce consumer law through administrative proceedings. This means that for the first time in the UK we're going to see regulatory decisions finding breaches of consumer protection law. And when it finds a breach, the CMA will (again for the first time) be able to impose potentially quite significant penalties up to a maximum of 10% of the company's global turnover, as well as imposing redress requirements and other forms of directions or remedies.

So this is going to be a big change and it's going to be a big change also from the current position. Up until now, the CMA could only really seek enforcement action through the courts. That was a time-consuming, costly, and frankly less effective route than direct enforcement will be. So the new powers are going to make it really very significantly easier for the CMA to bring enforcement cases, so we expect more enforcement. And the possibility of fines means that clearly the risks of getting it wrong are also going to increase quite significantly.

Fiona:

And what will an enforcement process look like?

Chris:

I think as we expected, the CMA's process is going to draw heavily from its approach to conducting competition law investigations. So for those who are familiar with those investigations under the Competition Act, I think the process will be familiar. The CMA is going to have broad investigation powers, so the ability to issue information requests as well as to attend premises. If, as a result of its investigation, it thinks there are reasonable grounds to suspect an infringement, it will issue what's called a Provisional Infringement Notice (or PIN) basically setting out its findings, the basis for the alleged infringement, as well as any proposed directions or any penalty that they're considering.

And then parties, as in the competition law space, will have the ability to respond to that both in writing and at an oral hearing. And then ultimately, if it concludes there is or has been a breach of consumer law, it will issue (and publish also) a Final Infringement Notice, setting out the relevant facts, its reasoning, and also the penalties and directions that it's imposed. And then where a final decision imposes a penalty or directions, parties will have the ability to appeal by bringing an action or an appeal to the High Court.

So as I say, in terms of a process, it's one that really is largely familiar to us and one that we're well-versed in from the competition enforcement space. But I think the key difference actually from the competition world is going to be timing. There is generally across all of its functions, increased pressure on the CMA to move more quickly in carrying out its functions. The Act (the DMCC Act) actually imposes a new duty of expedition on the CMA, again across all of its activities. And in fact, pace is one of the 4Ps that's in the framework currently being set out by the CEO of the CMA, which is going to apply across all their work.

But I think in the consumer world in particular, there is a real focus on trying to bring these cases and to conclude these cases as quickly as possible. The CMA has previously suggested a target of around nine months, although that's not a formal position, but even the guidance they have published does show us that the investigation timelines are going to be really quite tight. For example, the window for parties to submit written representations in response to a PIN is typically going to be around 20 to 40 working days, which is significantly shorter than the equivalent time you would expect to respond in competition law investigations.

Fiona:

Thanks Chris. It's interesting to see how quickly the CMA plans to conduct these investigations.
If we stick with the enforcement regime and process for now, Mel and Gabriele, can you provide us with an overview of what consumer enforcement looks like in Australia and Italy?

Melissa:

Yes. Well in Australia consumer law sits within the competition laws and they share the same enforcer, the ACCC (the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission), which is not the only enforcer but the primary enforcer, so an independent government agency. It is a very well-funded, well-regarded regulator and it is unapologetically an investigatory body. It investigates with a view to prosecute and it has real success actually in consumer law matters.

And the penalties for contravention of consumer law are eye-watering. They match the penalties for competition law contraventions. And the success that the ACCC has in these cases, the number of investigations they have and the penalties that they are achieving through the courts in Australia, means that this is an issue for main boards across all sectors of the economy.

The ACCC has almost everything you would want in an enforcement toolkit to come and detect and investigate consumer law contraventions. Either on a voluntary basis or in a statutory, compulsory basis, they can compel the production of documents, provision of information, gather evidence by interviewing people under oath. I'm interested to hear, Chris, you say that pace will be an important feature of enforcement in your jurisdiction because in Australia these investigations are complex and can run for many years. So it will be interesting to see how that plays out in the UK.

Gabriele:

Great, thanks Mel. Actually, also back in Europe and particularly in Italy, the consumer protection regime has been in place now for many years, about three decades. So the Italian Competition Authority has also this dual role of a consumer law enforcer: I mean, it's really there a very long experience, a large number of cases that have been dealt with during these years. And indeed, the Italian Competition Authority is competent both for the so-called unfair commercial practices, as well as to tackle unfair terms in contracts. So it's really a very broad remit.

The investigation powers are actually very, very similar to what we just heard, similar to the competition law enforcement powers. So the Italian Competition Authority can visit premises, request information, seize documents. And indeed, these investigation are very, very complex.

As to the powers, the Italian Authority can prohibit conducts or stop certain conducts to be performed during an investigation. It can impose hefty fines around €10 million per unfair practice or terms, and can accept commitments from companies and ultimately in these cases not finding an infringement.

But there are some commonalities with what Chris has just said about pace, so the timing on investigations. In Italy also an investigation typically overall may last up to a year, but normally it's 180 days for companies that are based in Italy, otherwise it's 240 days. And in both instances there could be extensions in case of requests for information or commitments being discussed. So you may imagine that there is a lot of pressure because you have to really decide very quickly your legal strategy and how you want to go about it. And clearly this entails that companies put together the resources, the legal team, marketing, maybe sometimes technical people for user experience in case the conducts concern online materials.

So it's really very, very complex. And I would stress that, for instance, in case of commitments, a company has to decide within 45 days from the launch of the investigation. So this is really a very complex type of cases. You may expect that really companies have to put the resources there because cases may really go in the wrong direction very, very quickly.

I would probably stop here as we have a lot of things to discuss today.

Fiona:

Thanks, Gabriele. Thanks, Mel. Staying with the enforcement process for now, you've all talked about financial penalties and that's a big aspect of the regime in Australia and in Italy. It's going to become an important feature here as well. But what's the role for consumer redress and how does that fit alongside any financial penalties?

Gabriele, do you want to start?

Gabriele:

Yeah. Just as to what I said, fines can be very, very significant. And consumer redress is something that now is formally taken into account when the Italian Competition Authority has to set fines. So if the company decides to provide redress, reimburse customers, this is taken into account at the end of the day in the level of the fine. And this also plays a key role when companies want to commit and basically offer a wider package. So if the package also includes a redress or reimbursement, this is something that obviously the Italian Authority would strongly appreciate.

We have a couple of cases that I will mention in the banking industry where a large Italian bank actually at the end of the day decided to provide a certain product for free to customers that were affected by their conduct. The same thing we had in the airline industry. A large airline actually provided redress to, again, all those customers who had to basically pay for the check-in at the airport. And again, redress, it can entail a large amount of money. So it's quite important and it's a very strong indication of compliance vis-à-vis consumers and the Authority.

Melissa:

And in Australia, actually over the last couple of years we've seen a deliberate key message coming out of the Commission, which is they expect consumer redress. So in addition to a pecuniary penalty, which would be sought from the court, the expectation of the Commission is that companies have thought about what is the remediation programme, what does the redress programme look like in addition to the penalty.

Chris:

Yeah, and I think we all expect now similar dynamics to play out in the UK as well. I mean, redress schemes in the UK aren't new. They've been a feature of consumer enforcement for a number of years. But to date, the CMA has only been able to accept them when they've been offered by parties as part of commitments. Going forward, the CMA will be able to impose them as part of their directions in a final notice of decision.

We're awaiting guidance, I think, and seeing how that's going to play out in practice. Obviously the primary aim is going to be basically rectifying loss for those who've suffered loss as a result of conduct, but the CMA has also talked about compensating those who are otherwise affected, for example. So those who may have suffered distress or inconvenience, that potentially quite wide-ranging in terms of the scope of that.

There's been a lot of debate in the UK and I think it echoes some of the comments we've had already: is redress in addition to, or is it an alternative to, a penalty? But the CMA has really stressed that it does see the two mechanisms of having very, very different purposes. Penalty clearly is really there about deterrence, deterring that undertaking, other companies from infringing in the future. Redress is about compensation and compensating those who have suffered loss.

So I think we should expect to see both. I think we'll likely see a balance in favour of redress where that's possible, with penalty potentially being almost a backstop. But there will also be mechanisms to reduce the amount of penalty, as you were saying, Gabriele. So if redress has been offered, that's a factor that can be taken into account in potentially serving to reduce the amount of penalty that is imposed at the end of the process.

Fiona:

Thank you all. So maybe if we move on now to compliance and thinking about what businesses should be doing to ensure that they are compliant and not falling foul of those rules. What does good compliance look like, Mel?

Melissa:

Yeah, that's a big question, but I think when I think about organisations that have good compliance, a real culture of compliance, they are organisations that really can answer two questions. And the first is, if the board were to say to the business, to the general counsel, "what are the features of our business that expose us to consumer law risk, and how are we solving for that", can the business answer that? Can senior managers just understand that issue and be able to answer it? I think that's really important. So a real awareness of, what are the features of our business that we know create some risk for us and how do we attend to that?. And I think it's top-down, it's bottom-up, it's people understanding the issues and being alive to them. So that's the first question and answer I think is important.

The second [question] is, because it's very easy to trip up on a consumer law contravention, I think if the ACCC in Australia were to come and knock on your door and say, "How do you substantiate this representation? How do you substantiate this conduct?", where would you go to answer that question? And what processes do you have in place where you're not going to spend more time than you need to trying to respond to this investigation by the ACCC, but you're going to know how to answer that question and be able to hopefully shut down that investigation more efficiently and quickly than you would otherwise.

Gabriele:

Yeah. Actually I have to share entirely what Mel just said. First it's about culture within a company and endorsement from senior management. It's really more just than some exercise. It's really part of the DNA of companies. So this is I think really the first and important key point.

Then of course, as Mel was saying, clearly you have to be able to answer to difficult questions maybe because accidents may happen. And indeed, it's about obviously putting in place resources and processes that actually you can really use when this time happens. Obviously then if you want to probably give maybe a practical example, obviously it very much depends on the type of company and the type of product or services that are at stake. But generally I think some common features are if you are considering to launch a product, then involve your team and processes from the outset. Just don't wait that the product is out there and that you didn't think about how to comply with consumer law.

The same thing, any marketing initiative around the same product. Maybe these are products that have a very long shelf life, so there are more marketing initiatives. Again, discuss upfront with legal, marketing, and other people in the company that have to really deliver the message to the public. And then again, probably like in competition law cases, from time to time, let's invest some resources and do deep dives and check what is in maybe in some drawers that you didn't open for some years.

Well, I think these are probably common sense rules, but they should work also in this environment.

Melissa:

Yeah, and it's a real change, isn't it, from the old model of compliance, which was you'd have a policy about good consumer law compliance. You might have a manual and you'd have people do some face-to-face training with the salespeople to make sure that people understood their obligations.

But I think the expectation now has really moved. And the cultural piece I entirely agree with. And I think how are people continuing to have a look at their conduct and representations they make in the market to make sure they continue to be accurate. And I think there's some interesting things companies are thinking about in terms of how AI and some digital tools can help them at a time where we're all doing more for less. How can those tools help companies to really monitor what they're doing and stay compliant.

Gabriele:

Let me jump again on what you just said, AI-

Melissa:

Tell me.

Gabriele:

... because it's really interesting that the Italian Competition Authority, now they have a data science unit and they have AI tools that monitor what's happening online. So indeed, you are being watched closely and you have to keep pace.

Melissa:

Yeah. And that's how so many investigations start. Many of the agencies, the ACCC included, scrape websites and they're out in the market having a look. And so I think companies can be doing the same.

Chris:

I think there's a lot that those in the UK can learn by looking at what their counterparts and other jurisdictions are doing. I mean, it's interesting in the UK because the law isn't changing, so in a sense compliance should be as it was, but the risks are changing so significantly that I think, Mel, you were talking about the increasing board level, senior management relevance of these types of issues. When you're facing the level of financial penalties that could be imposed in the UK, that's going to become much more germane at a much higher and senior level of the management within the business. And it's going to be an onus, I think, on all companies to make sure they really have got the processes, controls, people in place, so that they can ensure, and as you were all saying, evidence and prove compliance.

A key part of the UK, a key part of the focus in the UK at the minute, is working out - where's the CMA going to go with the new powers? What are its priorities going to be? I think what we've seen so far, and we might come back to this, if you're operating in any sector in which the CMA has previously accepted undertakings, issued guidance, taken enforcement action, that should be your guide as to what compliance looks like. You should be looking really closely at what they've said, because I think it's pretty clear that the CMA will think: if we've set out the rules, if we've given our views on how the law should operate, that's fair game, that's a starting point for us to use these new powers to really target the initial enforcement action. So companies in those sectors I think have got a clear guide and should be using that guide to make sure they are complying.

Fiona:

I think that's a lot of really helpful suggestions, so thank you all.
The next topic we wanted to touch on is the interaction with other regulatory regimes, and in particular competition law. Chris, in terms of these new direct enforcement powers that's essentially bringing consumer law enforcement alongside competition law enforcement in the UK. How do you see the balance between those two regimes playing out?

Chris:

Yeah. I think that's going to be a really interesting question to focus on over the next couple of years. I mean clearly competition and consumer will remain separate legal processes, separate enforcement processes. There are similarities in the process, there's an investigative process, and we are going to see similarities in relation to the penalties that could be imposed. And the CMA has now said on a number of occasions that once it's got these new powers, once you've brought consumer law enforcement up alongside competition law enforcement, it does really regard the two tools as being equally important. And it really does expect that businesses should treat them the same.

And essentially, what it's going to do, and I think Gabriele we've certainly seen this in Italy before as well, it's going to be adopting what it calls an issues-led approach. So it's not going to approach a case thinking, "is this a competition case or is it a consumer case?". It's going to say, "right, what's the issue we're trying to tackle here?", and then work out which tool is best to allow them to do that.

And one of the things we have seen, and I think we might see more of actually in the UK, is the CMA has got general review powers. So it can request information, it can conduct an investigation without tying itself down into a particular legal route, but that then allows it to gather information and decide ultimately which tool is best placed to use.

So the groceries review that we've seen in the last few years is a really good example of that. That started with a general information gathering process, but it led both to consumer work, so for example, there's a review into loyalty pricing that was under the consumer powers, but also into a competition market study looking at infant formula. And there's a current review looking at dynamic pricing issues, which is the same, so could well lead to both competition and consumer work.

And I think it's been really interesting to see how that balance plays out in practice. I think it's at least possible, but interested to see how this has happened elsewhere, that actually the balance will shift in favour of consumer law enforcement. There are probably going to be more cases, we may see more complaints in the consumer law space, but actually the likely, or potentially likely, shorter duration of consumer law investigations, if that is how it plays out (and we've seen that maybe not quite as easy as the CMA may hope at this stage), but if they can achieve those more quickly, I think that's going to make them more attractive. In particular in a world where the CMA, as I said, has been under pressure to resolve matters, to be taking action more quickly, if it turns out that consumer law is a more efficient (in a timing sense) tool than competition law, then I think the balance could shift quite markedly potentially in favour of consumer law.

Melissa:

Yeah, I think that's hugely interesting. And I mentioned earlier, in Australia competition and consumer law sits within the same Act. They're enforced by the same set of regulators. And I would say the ACCC is definitely taking more consumer law matters than competition law matters at the moment.

And maybe as one measure of that in the last financial year, I think the ACCC was able to achieve something like AU$500 million in penalties for contraventions of the consumer law provisions, by comparison about AU$100 million in competition law cases.

Gabriele:

Yeah. I think we have similarities with the ACCC and probably other authorities around the world because in Italy indeed, the balance between the two regimes is quite in favour of the consumer protection laws. So there are many more proceedings in that area than in competition law proceedings.

But the interesting thing is that in the last couple of years at least, the clear message from the board of the Authority is that they will make use of all tools in a way that is basically interchangeable. So it's really about, as Chris was saying, about the goal. And therefore they may use one or the other according to what may bring results for consumers, for the economy, quickly and in a more, let's say, clear way. Also for the business, I would say.

We have seen also the use now in recent years of, let's say, the new powers concerning general inquiries that may bring to either then at the end a competition law or a consumer protection case. So this is really a clear testament to the fact that the Authority really wants ... It's goal-oriented, rather than sticking to certain formalities maybe of the past.

If I may quickly also, to shed light on the fact that there are also results interaction between consumer protection law and other regulatory regimes. Indeed, in these cases actually the Italian Competition Authority has to consult with certain other authorities, like Bank of Italy in case of banking cases, or in case of insurance company cases, they have to go to their regulator, as well as the privacy authority.

And it's interesting to see that in recent years there has been also tension between the Italian Authority and certain regulators. In a couple of cases we had the privacy authority that has been actually complaining that it was not consulted in a case where it thought that their role was quite key. And in fact, the Italian Supreme Court acknowledged that, let's say, mistake by the Italian Competition Authority by annulling a case, a decision. So moving forward, I think the Authority will cooperate more in that area.

Similarly, in a case concerning a large platform, in that case, in fact the Authority that is competent for the telecommunication guarantees refused to provide the mandatory opinion to the Italian Authority on the basis of the fact that the other authority considering it was solely competent to investigate the matter. And again, this shows that clearly cases are more complex and maybe there is more need for cooperation, discussion between authorities. But indeed, again, it also shows that it's important that everybody is on the same side, not ultimately because in the end certain companies may be affected heavily by the outcome of these cases.

Let me probably mention another interesting and very recent development, which concern, again, another platform. And in that case the Authority has coordinated with the European Commission that was investigating a similar conduct under the Digital Service Act. In that case, the Italian Authority has dropped the case, closed the case, and handed over to the European Commission.

Chris:

Yeah. I think that's, again, really interesting, but also an area that I'm not sure we quite know how it's going to work in the UK. You obviously have the CMA, with its new direct enforcement powers. All of the existing regulators have, or can rely on, the old court-based consumer law enforcement, so they all have that tool still available to them. And then, as you were saying, equivalent to the DSA, you've got sector-specific legislation in a number of sectors in the UK, so be that digital markets with the new DMCC Act, FCA (for financial services), Ofcom, Ofgem, many of those regulators have basically equivalent administrative powers to tackle what essentially are consumer issues in their regulated sectors, but using their bespoke licensing and authorisation regimes.

And I think there is a debate to be had still in the UK about where does the balance lie between enforcement by those regulators using their licensing regimes, versus opportunities where the CMA might be looking to use its direct enforcement powers. I suspect if an issue falls within the regulated sector, then that authority may well be best placed. But we have seen previous examples where actually the CMA has said, even in regulated sectors, if our powers apply, we want to take forward that action.
So there's still some uncertainty and we're going to need more clarity I think about exactly how the interplay is going to work between these new powers, and all of the plethora of regulatory regimes that really do exist across quite wide parts of the economy.

Melissa:

There's such an interconnectedness of regulators, isn't there? Global consumer protection regulators, and also subject matter regulators. And the ACCC is committed to those relationships and working with those various agencies and thinking about, well, what does that mean for companies? Knowing that competition and consumer protection lawyers are regularly exchanging information and talking about issues, and then different issues that are coming up are being looked at from multiple regulators. And so what does one do with that kind of knowledge? And I think it's interesting to think about there are some real global themes in consumer law that companies can be aware of. We might talk about some of those.

But also, they're facing multiple regulators when they're dealing with issues around scams prevention or issues to do with digital platforms. So there are multiple regulators looking at this. And so understanding how those regulators work, which regulator is taking the lead on particular issues, so that they can make sure they know who they're facing and they can be efficient when they're responding to these regulators. And there's a lot of discussion in Australia at the moment about ensuring there's real clarity from each of the regulators as to who is taking the lead on particular issues.

Fiona:

Thank you all. And before we wrap up, we want to spend a bit of time focusing on key priorities and trends in consumer enforcement. Mel, the regime is really well-established in Australia. Do you want to kick off with key priorities and trends?

Melissa:

Every year the ACCC announces its enforcement priorities for the year ahead. It has just done that in Australia, and it is interesting that something like 10 out of the 12 priorities relate to consumer law issues. And you're not going to be surprised at the issues that they are prioritising because I'm sure you're going to hear similar themes globally.

But the ACCC is really focused on issues that consumers are feeling during this cost-of-living crisis, for sure. So we are seeing the ACCC really focus on pricing practices. We are seeing the ACCC focus on making sure consumers are well-informed so they can make good purchasing decisions. And so there's a focus that remains around greenwashing and green and sustainability claims. There is a focus on the terms on which consumers can access essential services. And of course there's a real focus on how we regulate AI and prevent scams and online sales through digital platforms.

Chris:

Yeah. And it's really interesting, isn't it, because all of those boxes I think are being considered and looked at in the UK as well. And obviously in the UK, we've obviously got two questions in a sense. We've got, what has the CMA been looking at up until now, and then what's it going to be looking at going forward? But I think the themes in both of those buckets really are very similar. Historically, again, in the context of a cost-of-living crisis, a lot of focus around pricing practices.

There are new protections coming in, in the Act, for example around drip pricing, some new prohibitions around drip pricing. So I expect we'll see, again, increased enforcement in that area. As you were saying, Mel, the online economy, online sales, again, a really big area of enforcement. I said we keep an eye on the areas where the CMA has been out there setting guidelines and setting the framework. We've seen this in the last year new guidance from the CMA, for example, around areas about reference pricing online, the use of dynamic pricing online. So again, I think there's areas where we've seen enforcement, but we should expect to see potentially them being the focus of enforcement going forward.

And then greenwashing and misleading green claims, as you said, another big area of enforcement. Actually in the UK, not just by the CMA but also by the Advertising Standards Authority, has been really active in tackling adverts that are seen to be potentially misleading from an environmental perspective. But again, it's just really interesting to see how much overlap there is between the trends we're seeing in the UK, which I think means that if companies are thinking about where's the CMA going to be using its new powers, looking at what regulators are doing elsewhere is not a bad place to start.

Gabriele:

Yeah. No, I entirely share what you guys have said actually. Let's say, consumers around the world face the same issues. And obviously we come from years where we had a crisis, a financial crisis, energy crisis, we have wars, and authorities look at that and they want to solve problems.

And clearly what we just said about digital, sustainability, inflation, these are clearly key issues also in Italy. In fact, the novelty is that the Italian Authority in the last couple of years, I was saying, has made it clear what the priorities are, and indeed these are the areas of where they are going to act more decisively. Because actually they've been acting for many years in these areas, like green claims even before the EU directive kicked in in the digital space, they've been extremely active against so-called "big tech".

So it's, again, well-known areas, but indeed they are now on the centre of their action. So we may expect more of this to come in the next few years.

Melissa:

And so when you're thinking about your compliance programmes then, knowing what to prioritise, you would look at these enforcement priorities
as a first. Yeah.

Chris:

I think actually we've not really seen that on an annual basis in the UK, but I think going forward we may well do. I mean, just in advance of when these new powers come into force on 6 April, the CMA has already said it's going to be publishing an approach document, setting out some of what we can expect to see in the year to come in terms of both how it's going to use the new powers, but also what it's going to focus on.

And I suspect the CMA may well be looking to do something on an annual basis going forward as it tries to increase predictability around the regime, and really making sure that companies do know what they should be focusing on and where their efforts should be put.

Fiona:

Well thank you all. It's striking how much similarity there is globally across the different regimes. And as a final wrap up, I just wanted to ask for each of your key messages to clients. Gabriele, perhaps you'd like to start us off?

Gabriele:

Absolutely. Thank you Fiona. Well, I think I may say, based on my experience but I think on our experience, I mean, I think companies want to be compliant and they really are committed to comply with the law. The reality is that maybe now there are a lot of rules, particularly in Europe in the last few years we had multiple regulations. So it's a complex environment and therefore it becomes more complicated to watch all these developments.

So I think what really matters is to be aware of what the trends are, what the key issues are, as we said, and have a strong process in place. Then everything else, let's say, will follow. And indeed, let me close by saying that obviously we are very close to our clients and we are constantly in touch, so we are there to help and assist and be compliant.

Fiona:

Thanks Gabriele.

Melissa:

I think companies are doing fascinating things as they continue to innovate and put new products and services into the markets, and sometimes that's in new and emerging markets. And I think that the consumer laws aren't there to dampen any of that actually.

And certainly in Australia, there was real concern around greenhushing, that companies wouldn't be promoting the benefits of the excellent work they'd been doing in the sustainability space because they were concerned that they would be the subject of one of these investigations. And that is not what these laws are designed to do and it is not what the regulators are trying to do, but I think it does require real attention to these consumer law issues right from the start of that product lifecycle to help ensure we don't catch ourselves on the other end of an ACCC investigation.

Chris:

Yeah, or indeed a CMA direct enforcement investigation. I think that's a key message for me. Those new powers really do represent a significant overhaul, a sea change for consumer enforcement in the UK. The CMA has been asking for them for a while now. I think it's pretty clear that it's going to be looking to use them.

We need to see how and we need to see where, but as a final message, I think all consumer businesses in the UK really should now be taking, if they weren't already, taking proactive steps to ensure they're not going to end up falling foul of the new rules, that they're not going to end up being one of the ones at the receiving end of a potentially very substantial penalty. And obviously, please do get in touch with us if you have any questions or need any help with any of that.

Fiona:

Thank you all. It's been really interesting talking to you today and hearing about the different regimes, especially experience from Australia and Italy, which we'll see how that plays out in the UK. We'll be watching closely come 6 April for where the CMA starts to look.

To ensure you don't miss out on any future episodes, please subscribe to Ashurst Legal Outlook now on Apple Podcast, Spotify, or your favourite podcast platform. And while you're there, please feel free to keep the conversation going and leave us a rating or a review. Until next time, thanks for listening, and goodbye for now.