• news-banner

    Expert Insights

Paying too high a price? The CMA’s investigations into unfair prices for hand sanitiser products

Summary

On 19 June 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced that it would be investigating four (unnamed) pharmacies and convenience stores for potentially charging excessive and unfair prices for hand sanitiser products during the novel coronavirus pandemic (the COVID-19 pandemic).

On 13 July 2020, the CMA confirmed that it has closed three of the four investigations it launched in June as it considers that the retailers’ prices do not, or are unlikely to, infringe competition law. The fourth investigation remains open.

Background

In March 2020, the CMA established a taskforce to monitor and respond to consumer and competition problems arising from the COVID-19 pandemic. Updates provided by the taskforce in April and May 2020 revealed that it had received numerous complaints about unjustifiable price increases, with the largest price increases (of a median rise of just under 400%) concerning hand sanitiser.

On 19 June 2020, the CMA announced that it was investigating the suspected breaches of the Chapter II prohibition of the UK Competition Act 1998 (CA 1998) by four (unnamed) pharmacies and convenience stores for charging excessive and unfair prices for hand sanitiser products.

Chapter II UK Competition Act 1998

Chapter II of the CA 1998 (“Chapter II”) deals with the abuse of a dominant position by a firm with significant market influence if it may affect trade within the UK. The “prohibition” in Chapter II is closely modelled on Article 102 of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union which is aimed at preventing undertakings who hold a dominant position in a market from abusing that position in the European Union.

Broadly, under Chapter II, a business undertaking may be considered to have market dominance if it has a market share of around 40% or more (although this may depend on the relevant market’s particular characteristics). Chapter II does not prohibit a firm from holding a dominant position, but it is an infringement to abuse such dominance. Abusive conduct by a dominant business may include excessive and unfair pricing.

A company who is found to have infringed the prohibition in Chapter II may be ordered to cease or modify its conduct and/ or could be fined up to 10% of its worldwide turnover where such infringement is intentional or negligent.

The investigations

During June and July 2020, the CMA has been conducting its initial investigation, comprising information gathering, information requests and analysing and reviewing information gathered.

On 13 July 2020, the CMA announced that it has closed three of the investigations it launched in June 2020 as it considers that the retailers’ prices do not, or are unlikely to, infringe competition law.

According to the CMA’s Closure Statement, one investigation was closed as the CMA concluded that there are no grounds for action with respect to the relevant party’s pricing of hand sanitiser. After the CMA’s review of the evidence it concluded that the price that the party charged for hand sanitiser was not excessive under competition law.

The CMA has closed two of the investigations having had regard to the CMA’s “Prioritisation Principles” (the set of principles which govern how the CMA will make appropriate decisions about which work to undertake). In these cases, the CMA considers that it is unlikely that the retailers’ prices infringe competition law and that further investigation to reach a definitive view in these two cases would deliver limited, if any, consumer benefits. The decision to close the two cases does not amount to a definitive statement or finding as to whether the respective parties to the investigations have infringed competition law, and the CMA has said that no inference be made to that effect.

The fourth investigation is ongoing. It is at an early stage and the CMA has been clear that no assumptions should be made that competition law has been infringed. The CMA has not reached a view on whether there is sufficient evidence of an infringement of competition law for it to issue a statement of objections to the party under investigation.

Key takeaway

The CMA has been vocal in its response to some of the problems facing consumers as a result of the COVID-19 pandemic. On 20 March it published an open letter for businesses in the pharmaceutical and food and drink industries, warning them not to capitalise on the current situation by charging unjustifiably high prices.

On 25 March 2020, the CMA issued guidance on its approach to cooperation between businesses during the COVID-19 pandemic. As part of the Guidance, the CMA noted that it would not tolerate conduct which opportunistically seeks to exploit the crisis.

Further, from its recent investigative action, it is clear the CMA will not shy away from taking decisive action where it considers that consumers are disadvantaged, and should the fourth investigation result in disciplinary action, such a decision will be another warning to any businesses seeking unfair financial gain from the global crisis.

 

CMA’s Closure Statement

CMA’s open letter to pharmaceutical and food and drink industries

CMA’s guidance on approach to business cooperation in response to COVID-19

Our thinking

  • Seminar: National Association of Independent Administrators

    Events

  • In-House Insights: Building and Contributing to high performing In-House Legal Teams

    Megan Paul

    Events

  • Julia Cox, Harriet Betteridge and Alexandra Clarke write for Tax Journal on who might be considered the ‘winners’ and ‘losers’ from an IHT perspective following the UK Autumn Budget

    Julia Cox

    In the Press

  • City AM quotes Charlotte Duly on the long-awaited SkyKick v Sky Supreme Court decision

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • Charlotte Duly writes for World Intellectual Property Review on the Bluebird trademark dispute

    Charlotte Duly

    In the Press

  • Law.com International interviews Robert Reymond on the growth of our Latin America desk

    Robert Reymond

    In the Press

  • Autumn Budget 2024 – Charities – points you might have missed

    Liz Gifford

    Insights

  • Internationally competitive? The post-April 2025 tax rules for non-doms

    Dominic Lawrance

    Insights

  • Navigating the Lion City: A guide to Singapore's business etiquette and superstitions

    Shamma Ahmed

    Quick Reads

  • Global Investigations Review quotes Rhys Novak on the UK government’s new guidance on complying with its forthcoming failure to prevent fraud offence

    Rhys Novak

    In the Press

  • Under my umbr-ETA, ESTA, eh eh… FAO: international visitors to UK from 8 January 2025 – avoid rain and flight anxiety

    Paul McCarthy

    Quick Reads

  • National Infrastructure Commission’s Report on Cost Drivers of Major Infrastructure Projects in the UK

    Charlotte Marsh

    Insights

  • Global Legal Post quotes James Walton on the CJC's interim report into litigation funding

    James Walton

    In the Press

  • Family Court Reporting Week - supporting journalists to report family court cases

    Dhara Shah

    Quick Reads

  • Passing on family wealth – the Family Law impact of the new inheritance tax changes

    Sarah Jane Boon

    Insights

  • Potential parental disputes about school fees now VAT is to be added

    Sarah Jane Boon

    Insights

  • The new guidance on the offence of failing to prevent fraud – will it lead to a sea-change to anti-fraud compliance mechanisms?

    Rhys Novak

    Quick Reads

  • What constitutes “possession” and its importance (and relevance) for correctly calculating your SDLT liability

    Pippa Clifford

    Insights

  • Building Safety for Higher Risk Buildings – How is the Regulatory Regime bedding in?

    Kate Knox

    Insights

  • Navigating the Digital Services Act and Online Safety Act: A Quick Guide for Digital Platform Providers on the need to police content

    Dillon Ravikumar

    Quick Reads

Back to top