NextFin News - Britain's competition regulator has opened formal investigations into Trainline, Virgin Atlantic and Red Driving School over "drip pricing" — the practice of withholding mandatory charges from the headline price and revealing them later in the checkout process — in the latest escalation of the Competition and Markets Authority's enforcement drive under its new direct powers.
The announcement, made on 19 August 2026, puts three of the UK's most visible consumer booking brands on notice at once: a rail and coach ticketing platform, a transatlantic airline's holiday arm, and a national driving-school network. The regulator said it has reached no conclusions on whether the firms broke the law, but the move marks a shift from the advisory letters all three received earlier to full formal probes — and it arrives four months after the CMA levied its first financial penalty under the same rulebook.
The stakes are defined less by the size of any single fee than by the regime behind it. Under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, the CMA can now impose fines of up to 10% of a company's global turnover and order consumer redress without going to court. The question this piece pursues is whether the regulator's new toolkit turns drip pricing from a persistent nuisance into a genuinely priced-in compliance risk — or whether the early probes are mostly theatre.
What the CMA Is Investigating
The three investigations target different points in the booking journey but the same underlying practice: mandatory charges that are separated from the headline price or added later, so shoppers either face unexpected costs or must calculate the total themselves.
For Trainline, the probe focuses on whether all mandatory fees were displayed upfront to travellers buying train and coach tickets in advance, on its app and its website. The CMA said it observed transactions with additional fees ranging from 50p to £2.79, along with a £1.50 booking fee for coach journeys. (One report put the floor of that range at 59p; the regulator's own briefing to news organisations cited 50p.)
For Virgin Atlantic Holidays, the investigation concerns mandatory resort fees and local taxes for package holidays. "These fees can vary but can cost hundreds of pounds and significantly increase the price of a holiday," the regulator said — an order of magnitude larger than the ticketing fees at issue in the Trainline case.
For Red Driving School, one of the UK's largest national driver-education providers with a network of more than 1,700 franchised instructors, the CMA is examining how a mandatory booking fee and a so-called digital fee — typically £7 per booking — were displayed to customers booking lessons.
Emma Cochrane, the CMA's executive director for consumer protection, framed the action as a response to household budget pressure as much as to legal technicality.
At a time when many households are watching every pound they spend, it is important that people are not surprised by extra fees when booking train and coach tickets, holidays or driving lessons. Clear pricing helps people compare offers confidently and choose the option that works best for them. Unexpected mandatory charges make this much harder, which is why the CMA initially put these firms on notice over concerns about their pricing practices and is now opening formal investigations.
She said: "The first price customers see should be the price they pay."
Trainline said in a statement: "Trainline is committed to offering customers a transparent booking experience with clear pricing and genuine value. We've proactively engaged with the CMA over several months and we are taking proactive steps to enhance how certain fees are presented to our customers. We will continue engaging with the CMA to address their questions." A Virgin Atlantic Holidays spokesman said: "We take our responsibility to customers incredibly seriously and we always want to ensure they can make an informed decision when booking a holiday with us. Mandatory fees are indicated at multiple stages throughout the booking journey. We are reviewing the points raised by the CMA carefully and will co-operate fully with its investigation." Red Driving School was contacted for comment but had not responded at the time of writing.
The CMA said consumers affected could receive compensation if it is ultimately found that the companies broke the law. It also noted a competition dimension beyond consumer harm: "Such practices can also impact competition between businesses, as a firm using drip pricing may falsely appear to be cheaper than a competitor and attract more customers."
The Enforcement Regime Behind the Probes
The distinguishing feature of these investigations is not the conduct — drip pricing has been on the CMA's radar for years — but the weapons now available to punish it. The regulator's direct consumer-enforcement powers under the DMCC Act came into force in April 2025. Before then, the CMA generally had to take a business to court to establish a breach of consumer law. Now it can decide the question itself and issue a Final Infringement Notice, backed by penalties of up to 10% of global turnover or £300,000, whichever is higher.
The regime also contains a calibrated settlement ladder. A business that admits the infringement and settles before the CMA issues a Provisional Infringement Notice can receive a penalty reduction of up to 40%; that discount falls to up to 25% if settlement comes after a PIN has been served. Alternatively, a firm can offer undertakings — a promise to correct the harm — which the CMA may accept without requiring an admission of liability or any penalty at all.
The CMA has already shown it will use the full ladder, and the sequence matters. In November 2025, after reviewing more than 400 businesses across 19 sectors, the regulator opened enforcement cases against eight businesses — five of them focused on hidden fees and drip pricing — and issued advisory letters to a further 100 firms. The first case to conclude was the AA: in April 2026, the CMA ordered it to refund more than £760,000 to over 80,000 customers of AA Driving School and BSM Driving School and to pay a £4.2 million fine, a total cost of almost £5 million, after a mandatory £3 booking fee was not shown upfront. Marks Electrical settled next. Then in June 2026, StubHub UK was fined £889,200 — a figure reduced by 40% for early settlement, implying an original penalty of roughly £1.48 million — and ordered to refund more than £590,000 to 51,350 affected customers, an average of about £10.33 per transaction. That was the third enforcement action under the DMCC Act since the direct powers took effect.
One detail in the enforcement record matters for the firms now under probe: according to legal analysts tracking the cases, the CMA deployed agentic AI to monitor the consumer journey at scale and identify potential breaches. That turns compliance monitoring from a complaint-driven exercise into a systematic, continuous one.
Why Small Fees Are a Big Deal
The behavioural mechanism is well understood. Partitioned pricing — splitting a mandatory cost out of the headline figure — exploits the fact that consumers anchor on the first number they see and underweight fees revealed later, especially when the checkout friction of abandoning a nearly completed booking is high. The headline price wins the click; the fee wins the margin.
At the per-transaction level, the amounts look trivial. A £1.50 coach booking fee or a 50p-to-£2.79 add-on is easy to dismiss as rounding error. But the exposure is a function of volume, not size. Trainline, listed on the London Stock Exchange as a FTSE 250 component, reported revenue of about £453 million and operating profit of £122 million for the 2026 financial year, with more than 55 million app downloads and, by the company's account, over 90% of its UK transactions conducted through the app. Multiply a small mandatory fee by tens of millions of bookings and the aggregate revenue becomes material — which is precisely why the practice is attractive and why the regulator treats it as a competition issue rather than a consumer-relations footnote.
There is also a second-order effect that the announcement does not state outright. If firms comply by folding mandatory fees into headline prices, advertised prices will rise even where the total amount the consumer pays is unchanged. A rail ticket that previously displayed £20 plus £1.50 will now show £21.50. To a shopper scanning search results, that looks like a price increase; in reality it is a reclassification. The regime, if enforced consistently, will make UK online travel and leisure prices appear higher without necessarily making them more expensive — a statistical artefact that could feed into inflation perception even as it improves comparability.
Cyclical Crackdown or Structural Regime Shift?
The central analytical question is whether this is a cyclical enforcement wave that will recede, or a structural change in how UK consumer law is policed. The evidence points firmly to structural.
A cyclical crackdown would rest on a short-term driver — a political cycle, a burst of complaints, a single high-profile scandal — and would fade as attention moved on. It would leave firms able to quietly revert to old practices once the headlines passed. None of that fits here. The rule change is permanent: the DMCC Act codified the upfront-pricing requirement into statute. The powers are permanent: direct fining authority and redress orders no longer require court proceedings. The monitoring is permanent: AI-enabled, journey-scale surveillance does not switch off between enforcement cycles. And the precedent trail — the AA at £4.2 million, StubHub at nearly £900,000, Marks Electrical — shows a regulator converting investigations into fines and refunds, not just warnings.
The compliance response reinforces the point. Once a booking engine is rewired to display all unavoidable, mandatory charges in the headline price, it cannot silently drip fees again without a deliberate, auditable reversal. The switching cost runs in one direction.
That said, the intensity of enforcement is the cyclical leg riding on top of the structural base. The CMA has signalled that year-two focus areas extend beyond pricing to fake reviews and subscriptions, which implies attention will broaden rather than narrow. But the upfront-pricing floor is now the permanent baseline.
The Counter-Thesis — And What Would Prove It Wrong
The strongest case against reading too much into these probes is straightforward: they are early-stage, the CMA has reached no conclusions, and the immediate instrument is an advisory letter rather than a penalty. The fees involved are small; the settlement discount of up to 40% means even a proven breach could be resolved cheaply; and the firms can argue, as Trainline already does, that fees were "indicated at multiple stages throughout the booking journey." On this view, the probes are calibrated signalling — enough to push firms toward voluntary fixes, but unlikely to produce headline fines on the scale of the AA case.
That argument is not frivolous, but it mistakes the mechanism of the regime for a weakness. The settlement discount is not a loophole; it is the design. By making early admission and remediation the cheapest path, the CMA converts each investigation into a precedent without needing to litigate every one. The AA and StubHub outcomes show the threat behind the discount is real. And the advisory letter is not the end of the road — it is the documented first step that makes a subsequent Final Infringement Notice harder to contest.
The falsifying signal is specific: if the CMA closes all three probes within 12 months with undertakings only — no Final Infringement Notices, no consumer redress — then the "new regime, new consequences" thesis is wrong and drip pricing remains a low-cost compliance nuisance. If even one of the three receives a FIN with a refund order, the regime has teeth and the exposure is real for every online business that separates a mandatory charge from its headline price.
Who Benefits, Who Is Exposed
The beneficiaries are the competitors that already display full prices upfront and now compete on a level playing field, consumer groups that have long campaigned against hidden fees, and the CMA itself, whose institutional credibility rises with each conversion of a probe into a remedy. The exposed are the three named firms in the short term, and in the medium term the wider set of consumer-facing online businesses with mandatory add-ons: airlines and hotel platforms with resort and service fees, event-ticketing marketplaces, driving schools, and subscription services with compulsory charges revealed at checkout.
Split by time horizon: in the short term, the risk to Trainline is reputational and presentational rather than financial — a FTSE 250-listed company with about £453 million of annual revenue facing an open investigation carries an overhang until the probe closes. In the medium term, if Final Infringement Notices issue, the exposure scales with the 10%-of-global-turnover cap plus redress orders, and the AA precedent shows refunds can reach tens of thousands of customers. In the long term, the structural outcome is a market where the advertised price is the payable price across UK online retail, with the CMA's year-two focus on fake reviews and subscriptions extending the same logic to other forms of misleading information.
The base case is settlement: fee-representation changes, modest penalties discounted for early admission, and no admission-free escape. The upside case for consumers is one or more Final Infringement Notices with refund orders that set a precedent for the wider travel sector. The downside case for firms is a protracted investigation that forces a pricing redesign under regulatory supervision and invites follow-on claims.
What to watch, in order: whether the CMA issues Provisional Infringement Notices to any of the three; whether any firm offers undertakings instead of settling; how the other businesses caught in the regulator's November 2025 sweep respond; and whether the advertised-price effect — higher headline numbers with unchanged totals — begins to show up in travel-price data.
The CMA's new powers were always going to be tested not by whether it could fine a bad actor, but by whether it could make compliance the rational default. These three probes are that test in motion — and the settlement discount, not the fine, is the mechanism that will decide it.
Explore more exclusive insights at nextfin.ai.
