Misleading Sales Practices: Don't Sleep On The CMA's Recent Settlement

The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has secured a High Court-backed settlement against Emma Sleep, confirming that its misleading urgency tactics, including countdown timers that re-set and false “high demand” claims, breached consumer law. This is another clear warning shot for online retailers, showcasing that pressure-selling through "dark patterns" is firmly in the regulator’s crosshairs.

What led to the investigation?

The CMA began its investigation into Emma Sleep in November 2022 as part of a wider review of online choice architecture and tactics that 'nudge' consumers into certain transactional decisions.

The CMA considered that Emma Sleep was using:

• misleading countdown timers which would restart when the page was refreshed or when the time ran out; and
• false ‘high demand’ messages and ‘discount’ claims, which created undue pressure on consumers to make rushed purchases.

This investigation was initiated under the CMA's previous consumer powers (i.e. before their new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA)) so the CMA couldn’t decide independently whether the law had been broken, it required Court input. The Court has now confirmed the CMA's settlement with Emma Sleep, who has admitted that it broke consumer law and has also:

• given an undertaking to stop these practices and ensure that future claims on its website are clear, accurate and do not create a misleading sense of urgency; and committed to implement robust compliance measures across its business.

What does this mean?

The High Court has confirmed the CMA's position that the pressure selling tactics used by Emma Sleep were illegal.

The CMA has used this as an opportunity to re-emphasise the importance of compliance and has stated in its press release "Our message to businesses is simple – get your house in order or deal with the consequences."

With the DMCCA now in force, the CMA can move faster and impose penalties directly, significantly increasing enforcement risk.

Urgency claims: where is the line?

Urgency claims are not inherently illegal, but care must be taken.

Claims are more likely to be compliant where they:

• are factually accurate and substantiated;
• are clear and transparent;
• do not create artificial pressure; and
• do not mislead regarding availability, timing or pricing.

This was not the case with Emma Sleep. For example, Emma Sleep claimed "High Demand During the last 24 hours this product has been viewed 6,458 times" when only seven units of the product were sold on that day and there was no shortage of stock.

Use of urgency must be to inform customers, not to manipulate.

The enforcement landscape ahead

The CMA is actively ramping up consumer enforcement using its new powers. Ongoing areas of focus include fake reviews and drip pricing, and we expect more investigations to commence. For information, the first fine from the CMA under its new powers required the ASA to:

• pay a financial penalty of £4.2 million for infringing consumer protection law;
• refund booking fees paid by affected consumers (over £760,000); and
• report back to the CMA with updates on the refund process.

Emma Sleep itself remains under investigation for “was/now” pricing, with trial listed for 4 June 2026, a case that could provide further clarity on discounting practices. We will watch this space…

What should businesses do now?

Audit your online sales journey, particularly:

• timers and countdowns
• availability messaging; and
• discount framing.

If it could be seen as creating artificial urgency, it’s time to reevaluate.

Read the original article on GowlingWLG.com