UK: Jobs For The Boys

Last Updated: 14 May 2014
Article by Matthew Hall

Matthew Hall reviews the role of the CMA in controlling cartels.

The European Commission grabs all the headlines for its uncompromising cartel fines, while the UK equivalent (the Office of Fair Trading (OFT), now replaced by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA)), is often seen as a laggard in this area. However, the CMA does have teeth and is determined to show this. During 2013, as the OFT, it handed down two cartel fining decisions against a total of ten companies (Mercedes-Benz Commercial Vehicles [2013] and Access Control and Alarm Systems [2013]) and moved forward several other investigations, including a new criminal cartel investigation against individuals.

The OFT was always careful to point out that its efforts to stamp out cartels in particular, but also other anti-competitive practices more generally, involve action on several fronts. The same will be true now the CMA has been fully up and running since 1 April 2014. It will continue advocacy and support for corporate compliance programmes, but actual enforcement action against individual companies and individuals will remain an important part of the mix. The CMA's January 2014 strategy document ('Vision, value and strategy for the CMA') states that one of its five strategic goals will be to 'deliver effective enforcement', so as to:

... deter wrongdoing [and] ensure that businesses and individuals understand the law and know that effective sanctions follow if they break it.

There is also pressure from the UK government to decide cases and fine companies. In January 2014, the Department for Business, Innovation & Skills published a document ('Competition and Markets Authority; Performance Management Framework') stating that it expects the CMA:

... to select and conclude an appropriate mix of cases, including... multiparty cartel cases, to maximise impact, end abuse and create a credible deterrent effect across the economy.

It is, therefore, clear that competition cases from the CMA will continue to flow, with cartel enforcement a clear focus. Against this background, the cartel fining decisions and the other cases advanced by the OFT in 2013 are instructive for a number of reasons. Any company trading in the UK (or indeed the EU as a whole, since the principles which apply everywhere in the EU are essentially the same) should be aware of the general issues raised.

What is a 'cartel'?

Anti-competitive agreements and practices are prima facie banned under EU and UK law. Article 101(1) of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU) prohibits agreements between 'undertakings' and concerted practices:

... which may affect trade between [EU] member states and which have as their object or effect the prevention, restriction or distortion of competition.

This is in effect repeated in UK law for agreements which only impact the UK (s2(1) of the Competition Act 1998 (the 'Chapter I prohibition')). If the arrangement impacts trade between EU member states and the UK, then both provisions can apply.

Some individual agreements or practices which are prima facie banned by Article 101(1) and/or the Chapter I prohibition (and are therefore void) are nevertheless exempted under, respectively, Article 101(3) TFEU or s9(1) Competition Act.

Agreements or practices covered by Article 101(1) and/or the Chapter I prohibition can be horizontal (between companies at the same level of the market; competitors) or vertical (between companies at different levels of the market; non-competitors). A 'cartel' is simply a type of anti-competitive agreement or practice involving competitors.

Case law has clearly established that some types of agreements and practices have as their 'object' the restriction of competition and are therefore automatically prima facie anti-competitive. No 'effect' on competition needs to be shown.

So far as concerns agreements between competitors, 'object' infringements are recognised to include what can broadly be described as 'cartel' activities, in particular price fixing, geographic market sharing, customer sharing and similar activities. Importantly, under EU and UK law, the exchange of information that reduces uncertainties about future behaviour is also an object infringement and treated as cartel activity.

Object infringements can in principle be exempted under Article 101(3) TFEU or s9(1) Competition Act, but this is difficult and unusual and, in any event, in practice cartel activities cannot be exempted.

If a regulator such as the EC or the CMA takes a decision finding that there has been an 'object' infringement of competition law then it will usually fine the company in question. The maximum amount of these fines is controlled by statute but within this the CMA (and EC) deliberately set fines at a high level as a deterrent, both in relation to the future conduct of the companies in question and as a warning to others.

Fine setting by the CMA and liability for fines

Section 36 of the Competition Act 1998 provides that the CMA may impose a 'financial penalty' (fine) on an 'undertaking' which has intentionally or negligently committed an infringement of Article 101 TFEU or the Chapter I prohibition. In setting the fine, the CMA must have regard to the guidance for the time being in force (s38(8) of the Competition Act 1998). However, the maximum amount of the fine is 10% of the worldwide turnover of the undertaking.

The OFT's fining guidance, which was adopted by the CMA, was published on 10 September 2012 ('Guidance as to the appropriate amount of a penalty', OFT423). Broadly, this sets out a six-step approach to calculating a fine. In the first step the CMA applies a percentage rate to the relevant turnover of the undertaking (relevant turnover generally being turnover in the relevant product and geographic market in its last business year).

Cartels are treated particularly harshly. The guidance states that in this first step the CMA will apply a rate of up to 30% to an undertaking's relevant turnover, and that for the most serious infringements of competition law, which include 'hardcore cartel activity', the actual rate will be towards the upper end of the range. Given that in the next step ('adjustment for duration') the resulting figure is usually multiplied by the number of years of the infringement, it can be seen that the fine for long-running cartels in particular will often be very significant when compared with the total turnover of the business (albeit always subject to the cap of 10% of total group turnover).

Potential personal liability

All cartels are of course put in place by individuals. Many countries, including the UK (s188 of the Enterprise Act 2002, as amended by the Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Act 2013), have therefore introduced personal criminal liability for cartel activities. In the UK this is the 'cartel offence'.

The cartel offence is committed by individuals who engage in cartel arrangements with horizontal competitors that fix prices, limit supply or production, share markets or rig bids in the UK. It operates alongside the provisions of the TFEU and Competition Act 1998 and the prosecution or conviction of individuals under s188 in connection with a competition law infringement is not relevant for the purpose of setting the amount of a fine payable by an undertaking under the TFEU or the Competition Act 1998.

Leniency and settlement

As with other regulators worldwide, the CMA has a leniency programme, which (under the OFT) has shown itself very effective at rooting out cartels. Under the CMA's leniency programme, businesses that come forward and report their involvement in cartel activity may avoid a fine or have the fine reduced substantially. Individuals involved in cartel activity may also be granted immunity from criminal prosecution for the 'cartel offence'.

The vast majority (but not all) of the OFT's cartel cases were started as a result of whistleblowing under the leniency programme. This is a complex area and the OFT was continually refining its rules. On 8 July 2013, the OFT published revised leniency guidance, which was accompanied by two 'Quick Guides', one aimed at businesses and one aimed at individuals. The CMA has adopted this guidance.

It is also possible to 'settle' with the CMA once an investigation has started. This requires an admission of the infringement, in exchange for a discounted fine.

The OFT's 2013 cases

In the Mercedes-Benz Commercial Vehicles case (issued on 27 March 2013), the OFT fined Mercedes-Benz and five of its independent commercial vehicle dealers a total of £2.8m. The dealers involved were mainly active in areas within the North of England and parts of Wales and Scotland. The nature of the infringements varied but all contained at least some element of market sharing, price coordination or exchange of commercially-sensitive information. One of the dealers avoided a fine, having been the first company to come forward after the investigation commenced to provide evidence of collusion in return for immunity from penalty under the OFT's leniency policy.

This case illustrates a number of points about cartel investigations in the UK. The OFT used it to send a signal that small companies active in local markets are not immune from competition law enforcement, stating that:

... the OFT will take firm action against companies that collude to deny customers the benefit of fair competition regardless of the size of the firms involved or geographic scope of the investigation.

The OFT was also keen to point out that it undertakes own-initiative cartel investigations, stating:

... these cases also underline that the OFT can uncover cartels even in cases where the businesses involved do not blow the whistle.

Finally, the case served as a reminder that under UK (and EU) competition law the mere exchange of commercially-sensitive information can be seen and fined as a cartel.

The Access Control and Alarm Systems decision (issued 6 December 2013) again provided a reminder that even small companies can be fined. In this case the OFT targeted three companies for engaging in collusive tendering concerning the supply and installation of access control and alarm systems to retirement properties. A fourth party escaped fines since it had applied for leniency. The combined value of the at least 65 tenders involved amounted to only around £1.4m.

As with any cartel case, the companies in these cases may now find themselves subject to private claims for damages in the UK courts. The OFT, presumably much to the dismay of the companies in the Access Control and Alarm Systems case, commented that, although it was not required to make any findings about effects on prices, the conduct is likely to mean higher prices were paid by many people. That is certainly what any customers who bring damages claims will be saying.

The OFT's announcements about its other investigations during 2013 are also instructive. On 26 March 2013, the OFT announced that the UK Asbestos Training Association (UKATA) had, following discussions with the OFT, ended an arrangement that appeared to recommend the prices at which its members provide training services (UK Asbestos Training Association [2013]).

As a general rule, pricing recommendations made by trade associations to their members may raise serious competition concerns where they result in those members not competing with each other on the merits. This is a type of price fixing and therefore trade associations (and their members) need to be very careful when discussions or activities stray into this area. Emphasising this, the OFT commented:

[This] announcement sends out a wider message to trade associations that they should not undertake initiatives that could result in reduced price competition between their members.

Another case (Care Home Medicine Cartel [2014]) provides a reminder that even short-term cartels may be fined. On 12 December 2013, the OFT announced that a prescription medicine supplier, Hamsard, had agreed to pay a fine of £388,000 for entering into a market sharing agreement. The cartel only ran between May and November 2011. The other party, Celesio, escaped a fine entirely since it was the whistleblower (first in). Hamsard's fine was reduced since it also used the OFT's leniency programme (second in) and cooperated with the OFT under its settlement procedure.

This was a bald market sharing agreement; the companies agreed that Tomms Pharmacy (owned by Hamsard) would not supply prescription medicines to existing Lloyds Pharmacy (owned by Celesio) care home customers in the UK. In return, for at least some of the time, Lloyds also agreed not to supply prescription medicines to existing Tomms care home customers.

The OFT issued its statement of objections (a formal procedural step) in this case on 24 January 2014, and the formal decision was released on 20 March 2014.

There was yet more activity against companies in December 2013, with the OFT announcing that it had launched a formal investigation into suspected anticompetitive agreements and/or concerted practices involving entities in the property sales and lettings sector (Investigation into property sales and lettings and their advertising [2014]). This case concerns the advertising of fee rates in media entities and these companies' approach to each other's customers. No further information was available at the time of writing (except that the CMA is continuing the case).

Finally, the OFT demonstrated that there is still life in the cartel offence. In March 2013, it announced that it had opened a new criminal investigation (Investigation into the supply of products to the construction industry [2014]). As part of the investigation, searches were carried out at a number of locations and seven individuals were arrested in the Midlands. Early in 2014 that case moved forward, with one individual being charged and appearing in court.

Another criminal case started early in 2014. On 27 January 2014, the OFT confirmed that it had charged an individual under s188 of the Enterprise Act 2002, the criminal cartel offence, following an investigation into suspected cartel conduct in respect of the supply in the UK of galvanised steel tanks for water storage. The CMA, in addition to taking on this case, is conducting a related civil investigation into whether businesses have infringed the Competition Act 1998.

The CMA will be very careful taking these criminal cases forward, given that the OFT never secured a conviction (save where guilty pleas were entered) and had to stop the airline passenger fuel surcharge case (R v George [2010]). That latter situation followed the discovery during the trial of a substantial volume of electronic material, which neither side had previously been able to review.


It is clear that being involved in a cartel remains a key risk area for all businesses. Apart from fines, cartel decisions invariably give rise to reputational damage and these days it is almost inevitable that customers will bring private actions for damages.

For its part, the CMA will continue actively to investigate and take enforcement action against cartel activity in the UK. The OFT's 2013 cases provide illustrations of the following issues in particular:

  • small companies operating in local markets are not immune;
  • short-term cartels will not be spared;
  • individuals will be targeted under the cartel offence;
  • the risks arising out of just the exchange of confidential information;
  • the particular risks arising out of involvement in trade associations;
  • the potential benefits of using the OFT's (now CMA's) leniency programme and of settlement; and
  • the OFT (now CMA) will open cases on its own initiative – it does not always rely on whistleblowers.

It is also clear that competition law compliance programmes remain very important, whatever the size of the business. Apart from reducing the risk of a cartel (or other anticompetitive activity) taking place in the first place, a key benefit is the possibility of taking advantage of leniency if the programme catches a cartel.

Access Control and Alarm Systems [2013] UKOFT CA98/03/2013

Care Home Medicine Cartel [2014] UKOFT CE/9627/12

Investigation into property sales and lettings and their advertising [2014] UKOFT CE/9827/13

Investigation into the supply of products to the construction industry [2014] UKOFT CE/9705/12

Mercedes-Benz Commercial Vehicles [2013] UKOFT CE/9161-09

R v George & ors [2010] EWCA Crim 1148

UK Asbestos Training Association [2013] UKOFT (no reference)

Originally published in Procurement and Outsourcing Journal.

The content of this article is intended to provide a general guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought about your specific circumstances.

To print this article, all you need is to be registered on

Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.

In association with
Up-coming Events Search
Font Size:
Mondaq on Twitter
Register for Access and our Free Biweekly Alert for
This service is completely free. Access 250,000 archived articles from 100+ countries and get a personalised email twice a week covering developments (and yes, our lawyers like to think you’ve read our Disclaimer).
Email Address
Company Name
Confirm Password
Mondaq Topics -- Select your Interests
 Law Performance
 Law Practice
 Media & IT
 Real Estate
 Wealth Mgt
Asia Pacific
European Union
Latin America
Middle East
United States
Worldwide Updates
Check to state you have read and
agree to our Terms and Conditions

Terms & Conditions and Privacy Statement (the Website) is owned and managed by Mondaq Ltd and as a user you are granted a non-exclusive, revocable license to access the Website under its terms and conditions of use. Your use of the Website constitutes your agreement to the following terms and conditions of use. Mondaq Ltd may terminate your use of the Website if you are in breach of these terms and conditions or if Mondaq Ltd decides to terminate your license of use for whatever reason.

Use of

You may use the Website but are required to register as a user if you wish to read the full text of the content and articles available (the Content). You may not modify, publish, transmit, transfer or sell, reproduce, create derivative works from, distribute, perform, link, display, or in any way exploit any of the Content, in whole or in part, except as expressly permitted in these terms & conditions or with the prior written consent of Mondaq Ltd. You may not use electronic or other means to extract details or information about’s content, users or contributors in order to offer them any services or products which compete directly or indirectly with Mondaq Ltd’s services and products.


Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers make no representations about the suitability of the information contained in the documents and related graphics published on this server for any purpose. All such documents and related graphics are provided "as is" without warranty of any kind. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers hereby disclaim all warranties and conditions with regard to this information, including all implied warranties and conditions of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose, title and non-infringement. In no event shall Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers be liable for any special, indirect or consequential damages or any damages whatsoever resulting from loss of use, data or profits, whether in an action of contract, negligence or other tortious action, arising out of or in connection with the use or performance of information available from this server.

The documents and related graphics published on this server could include technical inaccuracies or typographical errors. Changes are periodically added to the information herein. Mondaq Ltd and/or its respective suppliers may make improvements and/or changes in the product(s) and/or the program(s) described herein at any time.


Mondaq Ltd requires you to register and provide information that personally identifies you, including what sort of information you are interested in, for three primary purposes:

  • To allow you to personalize the Mondaq websites you are visiting.
  • To enable features such as password reminder, newsletter alerts, email a colleague, and linking from Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to your website.
  • To produce demographic feedback for our information providers who provide information free for your use.

Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) do not sell or provide your details to third parties other than information providers. The reason we provide our information providers with this information is so that they can measure the response their articles are receiving and provide you with information about their products and services.

If you do not want us to provide your name and email address you may opt out by clicking here .

If you do not wish to receive any future announcements of products and services offered by Mondaq by clicking here .

Information Collection and Use

We require site users to register with Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) to view the free information on the site. We also collect information from our users at several different points on the websites: this is so that we can customise the sites according to individual usage, provide 'session-aware' functionality, and ensure that content is acquired and developed appropriately. This gives us an overall picture of our user profiles, which in turn shows to our Editorial Contributors the type of person they are reaching by posting articles on Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) – meaning more free content for registered users.

We are only able to provide the material on the Mondaq (and its affiliate sites) site free to site visitors because we can pass on information about the pages that users are viewing and the personal information users provide to us (e.g. email addresses) to reputable contributing firms such as law firms who author those pages. We do not sell or rent information to anyone else other than the authors of those pages, who may change from time to time. Should you wish us not to disclose your details to any of these parties, please tick the box above or tick the box marked "Opt out of Registration Information Disclosure" on the Your Profile page. We and our author organisations may only contact you via email or other means if you allow us to do so. Users can opt out of contact when they register on the site, or send an email to with “no disclosure” in the subject heading

Mondaq News Alerts

In order to receive Mondaq News Alerts, users have to complete a separate registration form. This is a personalised service where users choose regions and topics of interest and we send it only to those users who have requested it. Users can stop receiving these Alerts by going to the Mondaq News Alerts page and deselecting all interest areas. In the same way users can amend their personal preferences to add or remove subject areas.


A cookie is a small text file written to a user’s hard drive that contains an identifying user number. The cookies do not contain any personal information about users. We use the cookie so users do not have to log in every time they use the service and the cookie will automatically expire if you do not visit the Mondaq website (or its affiliate sites) for 12 months. We also use the cookie to personalise a user's experience of the site (for example to show information specific to a user's region). As the Mondaq sites are fully personalised and cookies are essential to its core technology the site will function unpredictably with browsers that do not support cookies - or where cookies are disabled (in these circumstances we advise you to attempt to locate the information you require elsewhere on the web). However if you are concerned about the presence of a Mondaq cookie on your machine you can also choose to expire the cookie immediately (remove it) by selecting the 'Log Off' menu option as the last thing you do when you use the site.

Some of our business partners may use cookies on our site (for example, advertisers). However, we have no access to or control over these cookies and we are not aware of any at present that do so.

Log Files

We use IP addresses to analyse trends, administer the site, track movement, and gather broad demographic information for aggregate use. IP addresses are not linked to personally identifiable information.


This web site contains links to other sites. Please be aware that Mondaq (or its affiliate sites) are not responsible for the privacy practices of such other sites. We encourage our users to be aware when they leave our site and to read the privacy statements of these third party sites. This privacy statement applies solely to information collected by this Web site.

Surveys & Contests

From time-to-time our site requests information from users via surveys or contests. Participation in these surveys or contests is completely voluntary and the user therefore has a choice whether or not to disclose any information requested. Information requested may include contact information (such as name and delivery address), and demographic information (such as postcode, age level). Contact information will be used to notify the winners and award prizes. Survey information will be used for purposes of monitoring or improving the functionality of the site.


If a user elects to use our referral service for informing a friend about our site, we ask them for the friend’s name and email address. Mondaq stores this information and may contact the friend to invite them to register with Mondaq, but they will not be contacted more than once. The friend may contact Mondaq to request the removal of this information from our database.


This website takes every reasonable precaution to protect our users’ information. When users submit sensitive information via the website, your information is protected using firewalls and other security technology. If you have any questions about the security at our website, you can send an email to

Correcting/Updating Personal Information

If a user’s personally identifiable information changes (such as postcode), or if a user no longer desires our service, we will endeavour to provide a way to correct, update or remove that user’s personal data provided to us. This can usually be done at the “Your Profile” page or by sending an email to

Notification of Changes

If we decide to change our Terms & Conditions or Privacy Policy, we will post those changes on our site so our users are always aware of what information we collect, how we use it, and under what circumstances, if any, we disclose it. If at any point we decide to use personally identifiable information in a manner different from that stated at the time it was collected, we will notify users by way of an email. Users will have a choice as to whether or not we use their information in this different manner. We will use information in accordance with the privacy policy under which the information was collected.

How to contact Mondaq

You can contact us with comments or queries at

If for some reason you believe Mondaq Ltd. has not adhered to these principles, please notify us by e-mail at and we will use commercially reasonable efforts to determine and correct the problem promptly.