header-logo header-logo

Home Login E-newsletter About us
28 April 2021 / Dr Jing Wang
Issue: 7930 / Categories: Features , Competition , Commercial , Technology
printer mail-detail

Competition law & e-commerce: change is coming?

© Copyright LexisNexis 2026. All Rights Reserved.
47590
Restoring competition in the digital market is essential for enhancing consumers’ confidence in e-commerce, says Dr Jing Wang
  • The Competition and Markets Authority’s decision on ComparetheMarket.com’s breach of anti-competitive activities.
  • Wide ‘most-favoured nation’ (MFN) clauses and narrow MFN clauses.

‘Price comparison websites are excellent for consumers. They promote competition between providers, offer choice for customers, and make it easier for consumers to find the best bargains’: Michael Grenfell, the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) executive director for enforcement.

However, price comparison websites can also go in the opposite direction, which is what we witnessed in the case of dominant price website ComparetheMarket.com (part of the BGL Group). The UK CMA fined BGL (BGL (Holdings) Limited, BGL Group Ltd, BISL Ltd and Compare the Market Ltd) over £17.9m in November last year for breaching UK competition law by price-fixing and restricting competition in a thoroughly intriguing fashion. Instead of promoting competition in the insurance quote markets, ComparetheMarket.com was found to have restricted competition by imposing wide ‘most-favoured

If you are not a subscriber, subscribe now to read this content
If you are already a subscriber sign in
...or Register for two weeks' free access to subscriber content

MOVERS & SHAKERS

Read All
Cripps—Radius Law

Cripps—Radius Law

Commercial and technology practice boosted by team hire

Switalskis—Grimsby

Switalskis—Grimsby

Firm expands with new Grimsby office to serve North East Lincolnshire

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Slater Heelis—Will Newman & Lucy Spilsbury

Property team boosted by two solicitor appointments

NEWS
Read All
NLJ this week: Tightening the screws on JCT terminations
The Supreme Court has delivered a decisive ruling on termination under the JCT Design & Build form. Writing in NLJ this week, Andrew Singer KC and Jonathan Ward, of Kings Chambers, analyse Providence Building Services v Hexagon Housing Association [2026] UKSC 1, which restores the first-instance decision and curbs contractors’ termination rights for repeated late payment
NLJ this week: Old rules, fresh warnings in employment law
Secondments, disciplinary procedures and appeal chaos all feature in a quartet of recent rulings. Writing in NLJ this week, Ian Smith, barrister and emeritus professor of employment law at UEA, examines how established principles are being tested in modern disputes
NLJ this week: The rise of the ‘ChatGPT client’ rattles the profession
The AI revolution is no longer a distant murmur—it’s at the client’s desk. Writing in NLJ this week, Peter Ambrose, CEO of The Partnership and Legalito, warns that the ‘AI chickens’ have ‘come home to roost’, transforming not just legal practice but the lawyer–client relationship itself
NLJ this week: Surrogacy children caught in succession gap
A High Court ruling involving the Longleat estate has exposed the fault line between modern family building and historic trust drafting. Writing in NLJ this week, Charlotte Coyle, director and family law expert at Freeths, examines Cator v Thynn [2026] EWHC 209 (Ch), where trustees sought approval to modernise trusts that retain pre-1970 definitions of ‘child’, ‘grandchild’ and ‘issue’
NLJ this week: Online safety law at a crossroads
Fresh proposals to criminalise ‘nudification’ apps, prioritise cyberflashing and non-consensual intimate images, and even ban under-16s from social media have reignited debate over whether the Online Safety Act 2023 (OSA 2023) is fit for purpose. Writing in NLJ this week, Alexander Brown, head of technology, media and telecommunications, and Alexandra Webster, managing associate, Simmons & Simmons, caution against reactive law-making that could undermine the Act’s ‘risk-based and outcomes-focused’ design
Copyright © 2026 LexisNexis
back-to-top-scroll