In a notable shift in its approach to competition enforcement, on 9 July 2025 the Competition and Markets Authority (“CMA”) announced its intention to accept commitments proposed by seven major housebuilders in its investigation into suspected anti-competitive information sharing. The investigation, which was opened in February 2024 following the conclusion of the CMA’s housebuilding market study, explored concerns that the housebuilders may have exchanged commercially sensitive information, including house prices and property viewing figures. The potential acceptance of commitments without an infringement decision marks a departure from the CMA’s traditional approach to addressing suspected information exchange, reflecting efforts to align its work with the Government’s pro-growth and pro-investment agenda, as advised in the government's Strategic Steer to the CMA (“Steer”), which we previously wrote about here.

Background

On 26 February 2024, the CMA opened a formal investigation under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 into 7 housebuilders in Great Britain. These companies represent some of the UK’s largest housebuilders in Great Britain, with combined annual revenues exceeding £20 billion.

The CMA opened the investigation following concerns that, throughout the period from January 2022 until February 2024, the housebuilders shared commercially sensitive information on the prices at which they had sold or agreed to reserve properties, incentives given to buyers, status of properties, the extent and type of interest in particular properties, and statistics of activity at certain housing developments. The exchange of commercially sensitive information between competitors is considered a serious competition law infringement, usually punishable by significant fines. The CMA’s preliminary view was that this suspected information sharing may have had the object or effect of preventing, restricting or distorting competition.

Proposed commitments

On 16 June 2025, the parties proposed comprehensive commitments to address the CMA’s competition concerns. The proposed commitments comprise four main elements:

• Information sharing restrictions: To not share commercially sensitive information in certain circumstances
• Industry guidance: To support the production and publication of guidance on information exchange in the housebuilding sector
• Financial contribution: To pay £100 million to government programmes funding the construction of affordable housing across the UK
• Enhanced compliance: To introduce enhanced compliance measures and training

The proposed commitments would be in effect for 5 years from the effective date and would be overseen by a Chief Compliance Officer in each of the parties. Crucially, these commitments would not, in any way, constitute an admission of wrongdoing – the acceptance of commitments would bring the investigation to a close with no decision on whether the Chapter I prohibition had been infringed. 

Diversion from normal procedure

The CMA’s willingness to accept commitments in this case represents a significant departure from its usual approach to suspected information sharing between competitors. Whilst the CMA can close investigations with commitments and no final infringement decision, the CMA’s procedural guidance states that it is “very unlikely to accept commitments in cases involving secret cartels between competitors”, making this decision particularly noteworthy.

Typically, the exchange of commercially sensitive information between competitors would result in substantial financial penalties following a formal infringement decision. For example, in February 2025 the CMA imposed fines totaling over £104 million on four banks following an infringement decision which found that they had shared commercially sensitive information relating to pricing of UK government bonds. The CMA’s approach in the present case suggests a more unorthodox stance, potentially influenced by broader economic considerations and the Government’s growth agenda. 

The CMA considers that the £100 million affordable housing payment would be sufficient to deter similar conduct in the future, ensuring deterrence is not undermined. This payment, if accepted, would mark the highest payment made in the context of commitments. Previously, the CMA has calculated payments based on the potential harm of the alleged anticompetitive conduct, for example in the Vifor Pharma case, which involved a £23 million payment made to the NHS in response to an abuse of a dominant position.

Political backdrop

This decision comes against the backdrop of the Government’s pro-growth agenda, reflected in the Steer, which emphasises the importance of using competition enforcement to support economic growth and investment. The CMA has defended the move, stating it aligns with the “4P’s” strategy outlined in the Steer - namely the “pace” objective - by reducing the time required by bringing the investigation to a close more swiftly, and avoiding the potential subsequent damages actions that may result. 

The intention to accept commitments indicates the CMA’s increased willingness to align its work with strategic economic levers, to embody its Steer from the Government, and support sectors that are critical to the UK economy.  The substantial financial contribution to affordable housing programmes also aligns with broader government policy objectives around increasing housing supply and affordability. The decision potentially supports the Government's goal to build 1.5 million new homes in the next 5 years, demonstrating how competition enforcement can be used to support wider policy objectives whilst maintaining deterrent effect.

Next Steps

The CMA has preliminarily concluded that the proposed commitments would address any competition concerns and would deter any potential similar wrongdoing in the future. Whilst the proposed commitments have not yet been formally accepted, the CMA held a consultation on the proposal to accept commitments which closed on 24 July 2025, with a final decision expected in the coming months. If the CMA accepts the commitments, the investigation would be brought to a close, with no decision published as to whether the Chapter I prohibition has been infringed.

Implications for future enforcement

Whilst this move indicates a possible diversion away from typical CMA practice, the substantial financial offering and ongoing compliance obligations demonstrate the CMA’s commitment to addressing anticompetitive conduct, even where formal infringement findings are avoided. This development does, however, suggest that the CMA may be more receptive to proposals of commitments that address competition concerns while supporting broader economic objectives. 

This case represents a potentially significant evolution in the CMA's enforcement strategy, balancing traditional competition concerns with broader economic policy objectives. While businesses should not interpret this as a fulsome softening of the CMA's approach, it does suggest greater flexibility in addressing competition concerns through innovative remedial measures that deliver both deterrent effect and wider economic benefits. The CMA has, unsurprisingly, had serious criticism levelled at it as a result of its proposed stance. Merely issuing a commitments decision in what is an information exchange case, usually one which entails a restriction of competition by object, could be viewed as avoiding a more thorough examination of the underlying competition concerns. Not securing an admission and not drafting an infringement decision means no appeal, no damages claims against the housebuilders, and no detailed explanation of how the CMA applied the law to the facts. 

The investigation does, however, reinforce the message that businesses need to carefully reflect on the information they provide to the CMA in response to requests for information, as the investigation was launched on the back of information received as part of the housebuilding market study. The CMA has plenty of form in using information provided to it in mergers and markets contexts to open antitrust investigations. 

For more information or further guidance in this area, please contact Dr Saskia King, Tenisha Cramer and Flora McCarthy. 

VISIT OUR COMPETITION & EU HOMEPAGE