Pace, Predictability and Proportionality: Rethinking the UK’s Competition Regime

Introduction
The UK’s competition regime sits at the intersection of consumer welfare, business dynamism and market resilience. In a fast-evolving economy—where digital platforms, global supply chains and rapidly changing consumer expectations shape outcomes—the regime must not only be robust but also efficient. This draft considers practical measures to improve the pace, predictability, proportionality and process of the competition regime in the UK, with a view to delivering timely, proportionate and well-founded outcomes.

Why pace matters
Delays in antitrust and merger scrutiny can have real consequences for investment decisions, entrepreneurial risk-taking and the deployment of innovative products and services. When proceedings drag on, businesses face uncertainty about compliance costs, potential remedies and the timing of approvals or remedies. A faster regime can help unlock investment, reduce the cost of late-stage corrections, and support a more dynamic economy, provided speed does not come at the expense of thorough analysis and evidence-based decision-making.

Predictability as a governance principle
Predictability gives markets the confidence to plan and allocate capital. Clear timetables, consistently applied rules and readily available guidance enable firms to design compliance programmes with more confidence. Predictability also reduces dispute risk by making the regulator’s reasoning more legible, from initial investigations through to remedies or dismissals. A more predictable framework should specify:

– clear timeframes for investigative steps, preliminary findings, consultations and final decisions;
– published guidelines on how the regulator prioritises cases and allocates resources;
– transparent criteria for when interim measures are warranted and how they are reviewed.

Proportionality in intervention
Proportionality means interventions should fit the gravity and nature of the concern. A one-size-fits-all approach risks imposing unnecessary costs, stifling legitimate competition or constraining business models that deliver consumer value. Proportionality can be advanced through:

– tailoring remedies to the specific risk, avoiding over-correction or broad behavioural prohibitions;
– incorporating sunset clauses and performance reviews to test continued necessity of remedies;
– differentiating approaches for different sectors (e.g., markets characterised by network effects, rapid innovation cycles, or essential facilities);
– emphasising guidance and commitments rather than compulsory remedies where feasible.

Reform of process: streamlining and modernisation
Process governs outcomes as much as law. Modernisation should focus on transparency, efficiency and stakeholder engagement, while preserving rigorous evidence standards. Key process improvements could include:

– adopting risk-based case allocation to prioritise high-impact matters, with transparent prioritisation criteria;
– standardised case management tools and decision templates to reduce duplication and shorten timelines without sacrificing quality;
– greater use of consent orders and binding undertakings where appropriate, subject to clear criteria and review rights;
– improved information-sharing with stakeholders, subject to confidentiality protections and competition-sensitive safeguards;
– enhanced digital case management, e-filing, and online publication of non-confidential summaries to support accountability and learning.

A practical set of measures
To move from principle to practice, the following measures could be considered, subject to statutory and institutional feasibility:

– Establish target timeframes for key stages of investigations and merger reviews, with regular public reporting on performance against targets.
– Publish decision-making guidelines that describe how the regulator assesses harm, market power, dynamic effects and potential remedies.
– Introduce a tiered approach to enforcement and merger review, categorising cases by complexity and potential impact to determine appropriate levels of scrutiny and resource allocation.
– Promote proportional remedies, including hybrid remedies that combine behavioural and structural elements, with sunset reviews and interim checks.
– Create a fast-track pathway for straightforward, low-risk cases to reduce unnecessary delay in routine matters.
– Expand use of binding undertakings and consent orders, with a clear mechanism for timely reassessment or withdrawal if conditions change.
– Strengthen engagement with affected parties through pre-notification exchanges, consultation windows and iterative feedback loops, while protecting sensitive information.
– Invest in data analytics and case management systems to streamline evidence gathering, internal reviews and cross-cutting analysis across sectors.
– Publish concise, decision-focused summaries that explain the rationale, evidence considered, and the expected impact on markets and consumers.
– Implement annual performance reviews that assess pace, predictability, proportionality and process outcomes, with public accountability and lessons learned integrated into policy development.

Potential challenges and guardrails
Any move to accelerate or streamline must guard against compromising fundamental principles of competition law, such as the separation of evidence, due process, and the right to a fair hearing. Potential challenges include:

– resource constraints and competing priorities within the regulator;
– the risk of over-emphasising speed at the expense of thorough market analysis;
– ensuring consistency across sectors with varying levels of market complexity;
– maintaining independence and avoiding perceived political influence when setting targets or prioritising cases.
To mitigate these risks, reforms should be piloted, evaluated with clear metrics, and accompanied by independent oversight and clear escalation pathways for complex matters.

What success looks like
A refreshed framework would deliver:

– shorter, predictable timelines for investigations and mergers, with transparent milestones;
– decisions that reflect proportionate remedies aligned to the specific market harm identified;
– clearer expectations for businesses on compliance, enabling better resource planning and fewer inadvertent breaches;
– a regulator that communicates more openly about its processes, criteria and expectations, while safeguarding sensitive information.

Inviting views and collaboration
We are seeking views on measures to improve the pace, predictability, proportionality and process of the UK’s competition regime. Stakeholders from business, consumer groups, academia and the legal community are invited to share perspectives on:

– which measures would deliver the greatest gains in speed without compromising quality;
– how to balance predictability with the need for case-by-case assessment in complex matters;
– practical design features for remedies that are effective, enforceable and adaptable over time;
– potential unintended consequences and how to mitigate them.

Conclusion
A competition regime that is faster, more predictable and appropriately proportionate supports a healthier, more innovative economy. By aligning process, decision-making and remedies with market realities, the UK can reinforce consumer welfare while preserving dynamic competition. Thoughtful reform—grounded in evidence, stakeholder input and rigorous evaluation—offers a pathway to a more effective, trustworthy regime that serves business, consumers and the public interest.

If you have views, examples, or proposals for practical reforms, please share them. Your input will contribute to a constructive dialogue about how the UK’s competition regime can better serve a rapidly changing economy while maintaining a high standard of competition enforcement.

January 20, 2026 at 12:00AM
完善我们的竞争体制

https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/refining-our-competition-regime

我们正在就提升英国竞争体制的速度、可预见性、比例性和程序方面的措施征求意见。

阅读更多中文内容： 加速、可预期、成比例与流程优化：就英国竞争监管框架改革征求意见的思考