The CMA came in for criticism over its approach to digital markets, with its former Chair urging direct interventions to stimulate competition in AI
The CMA believes that its four Ps approach is delivering as intended
On 7 September 2026, in London, the News Media Association and Reset hosted an event at the Financial Times, focusing on how digital competition enforcement can be reshaped to encourage economic growth and better serve consumers and businesses across the UK. Will Hayter (Executive Director for Digital Markets, CMA) opened the event with a keynote on the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) work under the Digital Markets Competition and Consumers Act (DMCCA) 2024, comparing its approach to Olympic runner Josh Kerr’s recent one-mile world record. He explained that Kerr had said that he would break the record, when he would do it and then did – which Hayter said embodied the CMA’s four Ps framework (pace, predictability, proportionality and process). He referred in particular to how this approach had been adhered to throughout the authority’s investigations into Apple and Google over their practices in mobile ecosystems and search services. Hayter stressed that the application of the four Ps did not mean the CMA was “cosying up” to these firms, promising that there were more conduct requirements (CRs) to come for Apple in relation to user choice screens and Near Field Communication (NFC, i.e. contactless) payments.
The UK Government should prioritise the development of domestic AI champions over large US-based firms
The afternoon’s first panel on the cost of concentrated markets in the AI age saw speakers in broad agreement that the UK Government needs to shift its approach to encourage more intense CMA oversight of, primarily US-based, big tech platforms. Stephen McDonald (Head of Economics, Which?) took aim at these firms, arguing that the CMA needs to do more to disrupt their “excess profits”. Dylan Sparks (UK Director, Reset) agreed, stressing the need for the Government to prioritise strong domestic champions over foreign firms. He referenced Andy Burnham’s (Prime Minister, UK) “good growth in every postcode” slogan, quipping that the firms currently being prioritised by the CMA have zip codes rather than postcodes. Matt Davies (Economic and Social Policy Lead, Ada Lovelace Institute) praised Burnham’s ideas around taking control of the essentials, cautioning that AI may soon fall into this category, potentially requiring more action from the Government. Among the many audience questions and comments, Marcus Bokkerink (Former Chair, CMA) stood out in his eagerness to give his opinion on the CMA’s approach since he was relieved of his post by the Government in January 2025. Bokkerink criticised the CMA’s lack of action in AI markets, arguing that interventions to encourage a more competitive, and therefore freer market, should not be perceived as a stringent, anti-growth approach to regulation.
The Government should not view big tech as its only hope for investment and economic growth
Neil Lawrence (DeepMind Professor of Machine Learning, University of Cambridge) gave an impassioned keynote on the future of AI, detailing how he believed the technology should be regulated and understood. Lawrence was critical of the AI sector, and bemoaned the fact that its leaders have largely come from software engineering backgrounds – exclaiming that ”they’re great at programming, but are not very social human beings!”. Lawrence stressed that most people want AI to fix social services, public administration processes, healthcare and transport issues, not for it to disrupt the arts and the creative industries. He recognised that anything quantitative may be taken over by AI, but warned against its use qualitatively – especially for issues that relied on personal relationships. Here, Lawrence gave an odd (but welcome) reference to former footballer Ian Wright and how his difficult upbringing could not have been solved by AI. Lawrence also lamented the Government’s “acceptance” of big tech as the only bastion of investment and economic growth, stating that these firms’ lack of understanding of the UK’s economic context is “very problematic”. Lawrence concluded by looking back at Keir Starmer’s (Former Prime Minister, UK) target for the UK of being “AI makers” not “takers” – stating that it seems Starmer really meant that the UK would “take it until we make it”.
Industry, policymakers and civil society agreed that the CMA must make better use of its powers under the DMCCA
The final session looked to set a roadmap for more effective digital competition enforcement in the UK. Chi Onwurah MP (Chair, House of Commons Science, Innovation and Technology Select Committee) stated that the consensus that governments and regulators should not reshape markets to be more competitive needs to be dismissed, underlining the importance of their roles in contributing to innovation. Like most of the event’s speakers, Onwurah called on the CMA to do more under the DMCCA, but recognised the need for stronger political will to drive such action. Roa Powell (Senior Research Fellow, IPPR) praised the DMCCA’s flexibility, arguing that this made it far more effective than its EU counterpart, the Digital Markets Act (DMA), but similarly urged the CMA to use its powers under the legislation more. Max Von Thun (Director, Open Markets Institute Europe) echoed this sentiment, calling on the CMA to use stricter tools such as CRs and pro-competition interventions (PCIs) from earlier in its investigations, rather than starting with only voluntary commitments from regulated firms, which he argued were delaying effective enforcement. Alex Rennie (Senior Public Affairs Manager, Skyscanner) was the only speaker (Hayter aside) to reflect positively on the CMA, highlighting its recently announced CRs on Google that allow publishers to more easily opt-out of their works being used in Google Search’s AI Overviews.
