Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Bill (First sitting)

(Limited Text - Ministerial Extracts only)

Committee stage
Tuesday 13th June 2023 Public Bill Committees

[Seema Malhotra]

Q The Government have not taken forward the recommendations from the CMA on tackling consumer detriment in the secondary ticketing market. Do you think that that was a mistake and that that should be in the Bill? Finally, huge new powers are going to the CMA. Do you think that the accountability mechanisms have the right balance? That will be a concern for Parliament. Mr Lusty and Mr Hayter might want to come in.

Sarah Cardell: If I quickly take accountability, George might come in on secondary tickets. Accountability is key. The Bill gives us greater responsibility and power, and with that must come greater accountability. That comes in a number of forms. Parliamentary accountability is critical. We are accountable to Parliament. We do that already through a number of appearances and engagement with Committees, but I am sure that there is more that we could do in the design of that, and we are very keen to work with colleagues in Government and across Parliament to ensure that that happens. Accountability for our decisions through the courts is another important element, and accountability to stakeholders, going back to the previous point, is key as well.

George Lusty: On secondary tickets, the CMA has taken a lot of action in this area. It has taken Viagogo to court. We found ourselves up against some of the inherent weaknesses in the existing consumer protection toolkit when we did that. We effectively had to initiate an attempt to start contempt of court proceedings to get Viagogo to comply with the court order that we had secured. We think that many of the changes in the Bill will address those weaknesses directly by giving us civil fining powers for the first time. We set out specific recommendations back in August 2021 about other things that we think could be done, but ultimately it is a matter for the Government to decide what they want to include in the legislation.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology (Paul Scully)]

Q How will the enforcement powers accelerate your enforcement action in particular? Remediation needs to come quickly in digital markets, especially with the appeals process, which has been a topic of conversation. Why do you believe that judicial review is sufficient to give proportionatality for people to push back and for keeping the speed up?

Sarah Cardell: On digital markets, the design works very well, because you have an engaged approach where we will work with businesses to secure compliance with the conduct requirements. We hope that that will be a constructive engagement, and that much of that compliance will be achieved without any enforcement activity. That is the aspiration and the goal. Of course it is important to have enforcement as an effective backstop and that that enforcement happens rapidly for the reasons that you stated. The Bill envisages a six-month time limit for enforcement, which is important so that everybody knows that that timing is ringfenced.

On appeals, let me take a minute to talk through the JR standard and why I think that it is effective, because there has been a lot of debate about that. It is critical that the CMA faces effective judicial scrutiny for our work. That should go on the record. We think that the JR standard achieves that. The JR standard applies to much of our work already, including our merger control and market investigations. It applies to a number of regulators for their regulatory work already, so there is an established approach for JR.

What JR is not, certainly in our experience, is a very light-touch procedural review. It looks at process questions, but it also looks fundamentally at whether we have applied the right analytical approach, the kind of evidence that we have reviewed, how we have weighed that evidence, and the rationality—the reasonableness—of our decision making. Take the example of the Competition Appeal Tribunal review of our merger decision, which was a review of the acquisition by Meta of Giphy. We had 100-plus pages in that judgment, with 50-plus pages looking at our analytic framework, how we looked at the effect on competition, the kind of evidence that we took into account and whether we weighed it effectively. It was a very detailed critique of our assessment.

What JR does not do is start a full merits from first instance court process. It does not say, “Back to the drawing board—we are going to set the CMA’s decision to one side and then conduct the process all over again.” That is much more similar to the full merits review that we have at the moment on Competition Act 1998 cases. Our experience there is that it results in very protracted litigation—we often have cases that are in court for five or six weeks. But, fundamentally, it also changes the incentives to the parties that we are engaging with, because all eyes are on that litigation process. That means that, in our process and our own investigations, it is a lot harder to reach constructive, collaborative outcomes, because every point that we are investigating is thrown into an adversarial contest. It means that we have to turn every stone, check every piece of evidence and make sure that every point is covered, which means that our investigations themselves are more protracted and the litigation is much longer.

The benefit of judicial review in this process is that it provides absolutely robust and effective scrutiny, but it also supports an environment that is aligned with the aspirations of the Bill more broadly—to encourage engagement early on and to encourage constructive, collaborative outcomes. Then, of course, parties absolutely have the right to challenge and appeal our decisions and, where they do so, that is resolved effectively through a JR process.

[Paul Scully]

Q So you believe this is the right balance between being robust enough for those with strategic market status and being speedy enough for remediation for challenger tech.

Sarah Cardell: Absolutely.

[Alex Davies-Jones (Pontypridd) (Lab)]

Q Good morning. We have talked a lot this morning about accountability to Parliament. That was highlighted quite heavily on Second Reading by Members from across the House. One of the other things that we have already discussed is the need for the CMA’s strategic priorities to be directed and advised by Parliament. Could you expand on your thoughts on that point? Also, where do you see the priorities for the Digital Markets Bill? That is not intended to be a loaded question.

Sarah Cardell: I will give a high-level response, and Will might come in on some of the specific priorities for the DMU. It is really important to highlight the difference between accountability and independence. The CMA is independent when we take our individual decisions, but, as you say, it is absolutely accountable for those decisions, both to Parliament and to the courts. That is accountability for the choices that we make about where we set our priorities, accountability for the decisions that we take when we are exercising our functions, and accountability for the way that we go about doing that work. I think it is important to have accountability across all three areas.

On the strategic priorities, since I came into the role as chief executive and our new chair, Marcus Bokkerink, came into post, we have put a lot of focus on really setting out very clearly what our strategic priorities are, looking at impact and beneficial outcomes for people, businesses and the economy as a whole. We see those as a trio of objectives that are fundamentally reinforcing, rather than in tension with one another.

We also take account of the Government’s strategic steer. That is in draft at the moment. You can see that there is a lot of commonality between our own strategic priorities that we set out in our annual plan and in the Government’s strategic steer. That sets a very clear framework for our prioritisation.

Will might want to come in on how we will set the priorities for the DMU.

Will Hayter: We are obviously thinking very carefully about where to prioritise action under the strategic market status regime. We cannot jump too far ahead with that, because Parliament is going through this process now and we have to see where the Bill comes out, but, as Sarah says, we will be targeting our effort very firmly at those areas where the biggest problems and the biggest current harmful impacts on people, businesses and the economy are likely to be.

You can get a bit of a sense of what those areas might be from the areas we have looked at already, particularly the digital advertising market, search, social media, interactions between the platforms and news publishers, and also mobile ecosystems. We did a big study there, where we see a range of problems stemming from the market power of the two big operating systems.

We will continue to update our thinking as we go through the next year-plus, building on our horizon-scanning work and understanding of how developments in the markets are shaping up and what that might mean for where the problems are.

[The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Business and Trade (Kevin Hollinrake)]

Q First, thank you for the work that you do. You are obviously an independent body and you make difficult decisions. You receive more scrutiny than we have ever seen before, with the CMA’s higher profile, and at times that must put you under quite a lot of strain. I appreciate the work that you do. You make the decisions as you see fit, of course, but those often come with criticisms, so thank you.

My question is about innovation. If you speak to some of those who are likely to be designated SMS—strategic market status—businesses, many of them might say, “Well, this will inhibit innovation from our businesses.” I think part of that is about the power to look ahead at where this may take us. What do you say to that? If one of those platforms was opening a new type of supermarket, for example, it might be claimed that this would limit innovation. How would you respond to that?

Sarah Cardell: I have a couple of points, and Will might come in. The general point is that this regime is very much pro-competition and pro-innovation, both from the major platforms, which are likely to be designated in relation to some of their activities, and across the economy. It is important that we encourage innovation that supports competing businesses, large and small. You can have innovation that supports an incumbent by allowing that incumbent to offer additional services, but sometimes at the cost of entrenching their market position. We want to ensure that we have an environment that enables those major players to continue to innovate, sparked and incentivised by the competitive pressure that they are facing, but equally allows smaller competitors to thrive and innovate too. That is the broad point.

As we have said, it is a very targeted and bespoke regime. We will be focusing only on areas where there is substantial and entrenched market power already. Therefore, the principal point is that businesses, large and small, will continue to be free to innovate and to develop their products and services. Of course we want to ensure that that happens in a way that does not reinforce positions of market power. Will, you might want to come in on that.

Will Hayter: As Sarah says, this is all about creating a fertile environment for innovation, and you can think about that at at least three levels. First, it might be that those companies are innovating on top of the platforms that we are talking about here—in mobile ecosystems, through app stores, mobile browsers, and so on. Secondly, there are companies that are seeking to compete directly against some of the big platforms, and we want to ensure that there is a possibility that the current incumbents will be knocked off their perch by tomorrow’s innovators. Finally, increasing competition should increase the pressure on the incumbents—the most powerful firms—to innovate further themselves, in a way that delivers the greatest benefits for people, businesses and the economy.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q Would you therefore say that those kinds of worries are ill-founded and that that is not something that would prohibit an SMS organisation from innovating?

Sarah Cardell: I do not think that there is anything in the Bill that prohibits innovation. The fundamental design, and certainly the way that we would intend to operate it, is entirely pro-innovation. We want to ensure that, as the designated companies continue to seek to develop and grow their businesses—of course they will want to, and that brings many benefits—that happens in a way that does not entrench their position, which is disadvantageous either to consumers or to competing businesses. That does not inhibit innovation, but it puts some guardrails around that innovation to ensure that the impact of that is beneficial and positive.

[The Chair]

We now come to a quick-fire round. We have six minutes left and four Members seeking to ask questions, so we want quick questions and quick answers.

--- Later in debate ---

[Seema Malhotra]

Q Thank you very much. This question may be more for Mr Upton. The Bill goes some way towards tackling the problem of subscription traps, but it does not go as far as what Citizens Advice has called for, or indeed the Labour party’s policy of making subscription renewals opt in rather than opt out. Why do you think that the legislation needs further safeguards? Why, in the light of your experience, is that important for protecting consumers from harm?

Matthew Upton: We have been asking for action on subscription traps for a long time. Any action is positive, but we are seeing this in the context of a cost of living crisis, where anything that takes cash out of people’s pockets stops them getting by from day to day. To be honest, we think that the intent is right, but this is potentially a huge missed opportunity for action on subscription traps. We have to understand how high the incentive is for firms to trap people in subscriptions. There is a huge amount of money to be made, to the extent that it changes the whole incentive structure so that for many firms, rather than thinking about how to provide a quality subscription, the rational thing to do is think about how to design the worst possible customer journey and to trap someone, whether through an online process that makes it difficult to cancel something—you will all have experience of this—or, to give a slightly facetious example, a process whereby you can cancel only when you ring between 2 and 2.30 on a Tuesday and you have wait for 45 minutes in the queue.

Obviously, we want to change that incentive structure so that we have a flourishing subscription economy, which should be encouraged, where consumers want to stay in subscriptions and firms focus on providing quality subscriptions. We do not think that the Bill as it stands will do that. For example, it says that exit has to be timely and straightforward. We do not think that that will work. We have been here before, if we think back to utility bills four or five years ago, when there was a big push to stop people rolling on to expensive contracts and to get them to switch. Regulators were focused on trying to dictate what went into letters to consumers about their renewals. Firms could make so much money by obeying the letter but not the spirit of the regulation that they would find ways round it, and switching rates did not go up. We think that the same will happen here.

The specific change that would make a huge difference and is legislatively straightforward is to provide that, at the end of an annual trial subscription, the default is that the consumer opts out. That is not about things like car insurance, where there is a detriment to people opting out, but for basic subscriptions, opt-out should be the default. That would allow firms to use all their ingenuity, power and influence to persuade consumers to stay in. They could go for it—send as many reminders as they wanted; that is absolutely fine. If the subscription is good, a consumer will stay in. That change will make the difference. We have done some polling on this and about 80% of people agree that that should happen. We think that it will put millions of pounds back in people’s pockets, that it is proportionate and that it will encourage a flourishing subscription economy.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q Rocio, on your point about including fake reviews on the face of the Bill, our intention is to legislate in this area. I do not know whether you have seen the evidence from Trustpilot, which was submitted as written evidence. It rightly points to the fact that most of the discussion around fake reviews thus far has been about products rather than services. Does not that illustrate that we need to consult properly about that to ensure that we get the legislation right? Isn’t there a risk that we could get it wrong by rushing to stick this on the face of the Bill?

Rocio Concha: A provision on fake reviews in the Bill should apply to both products and services. There is evidence to show that fake reviews also harm services. I do not think that there is a major risk. We and the CMA have produced a lot of evidence about how fake reviews are endemic on some sites. We have demonstrated the harm that they cause. It is clear what is needed. We know that we need to look at selling, buying and hosting. I do not see a risk to including such a provision on the face of the Bill. Then, in secondary legislation—

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q Even though there might be some things we have not thought about at this point in time. That would be a good example in terms of Trustpilot’s evidence.

Rocio Concha: If there is something that needs to be improved, you can always do it with the Secretary of State’s power later. There is quite clear evidence to provide a clear steer on what is an unfair practice. Obviously, as with anything in schedule 18, you have that power to modify, to add to the practice as more evidence comes in. We will provide enough evidence to the Committee to show that it can be introduced on the face of the Bill.

[Kevin Hollinrake]

Q Sure, okay. Mr Upton, on subscription traps, do you not feel that the powers that the Bill affords the CMA on civil penalties will address some of the concerns you highlight of people trying to get around the rules, for example? Would that not be something it could act on when it sees gratuitous behaviour such as what you describe?

Matthew Upton: I think it could, but we worry that it will not in reality. It is quite difficult to decide, for example, what constitutes easy and timely exit from a contract. You cannot necessarily measure it incredibly specifically, and I could imagine enforcement being really complicated. I could imagine firms dragging their feet, despite the way powers would speed up the ability of the CMA to act, as I say, because the incentive structure is so great.

One reason for the growth of the subscription economy is that it is a great way to provide services, but another is that it is such an easy way to make money by trapping people in. That is our firm belief and what our evidence shows. I just think a simple default would be much more effective than basically having the CMA chasing its tail and chasing firms. It would not be of any detriment to good firms who want to provide really solid subscriptions that people should want to stay in.

[Richard Thomson (Gordon) (SNP)]

Q The EU has a right to redress for consumers, and there is a schedule in the Bill that would allow the Secretary of State to introduce that again in future through secondary legislation. Do either of you have any sort of sense of the extent to which UK consumers might be at risk of being at detriment compared with their EU counterparts while that secondary legislation is not in place?

Rocio Concha: Our view is that it should be on the face of the Bill. We do not know why the right to redress has not been transposed into the Bill. From our perspective, we do not want to leave it for the Secretary of State to decide once we have an Act. It should be included.

The other thing is that the right of redress does not cover all the practice in schedule 18, only misleading practice and aggressive practice. It does not really cover all the list of unfair practice in schedule 18. I think that the right to redress should also cover that.