CMA says UK digital markets regime is on track

In a GOV.UK speech on the UK's digital markets regime, the Competition and Markets Authority set out a simple claim: the new rulebook for the biggest tech firms is no longer theoretical. The CMA says it is already using those powers in search, mobile platforms, cloud services and business software, with the aim of making digital markets work better for people and smaller firms. If terms such as competition policy or digital regulation make your eyes glaze over, you are not alone. In plain English, this story is about who gets a fair deal when you search online, download an app, tap your phone to pay, buy software at work or read news through a platform that stands between you and the publisher.

To make that point, the speech borrowed an image from sport. It pointed to Josh Kerr, who said in advance that he wanted to break the mile world record, then did exactly that in July 2026 with a time of 3 minutes 42 seconds. The comparison was not about glamour or speed. It was about setting out a public plan and then being able to show, later, that you followed it. That framing matters because digital regulation is often judged as much on credibility as on law. The CMA is trying to show that when it published roadmaps, opened investigations and spoke about acting quickly, those were not empty promises. It wants businesses, publishers, app developers and consumers to see a regulator that says what it will do, and then does it.

The speech was delivered against the backdrop of Bottleneck Britain, a report from IPPR discussed at an event hosted by the Financial Times, the News Media Association and Reset. One of the report's striking findings, according to the speaker, was that many firms saw the market power of large digital platforms as a bigger concern than access to finance or talent. That tells you something important: for many businesses, the problem is not only how to raise money or hire staff, but how to reach customers when a few gatekeepers control the route. This is where competition policy stops being a niche argument for lawyers and starts to feel like an everyday economic issue. If a dominant platform can shape prices, visibility, access or terms of trade, the effect spreads well beyond Silicon Valley. It can reach newsrooms, start-ups, retailers, public services and, eventually, households.

The CMA also used the speech to explain its relationship with government. Ministers can give a strategic steer, setting broad economic aims and asking the regulator to be swift, predictable, independent and proportionate. But the CMA's message was that this should not weaken its operational independence. In other words, government can say competition matters for growth, but it should not write the answer to individual cases. **What this means:** if you are trying to understand the politics here, think of two separate jobs. Government sets the wider direction. The CMA decides, on the evidence, whether Google, Apple, Microsoft, Amazon or any other firm should face formal action. That separation is meant to stop competition rules becoming a simple extension of party politics.

A big theme in the speech was impact on ordinary life. The CMA argued that people pay for digital services even when the charge is hard to spot. Advertising costs can feed into prices. App store commission can affect what developers build and what users are offered. Cloud and enterprise software bills can filter through to public spending, business costs and the price of goods and services. That helps explain the first wave of action. In early June, the CMA brought in a publisher conduct requirement for Google Search, saying publishers should have a fairer basis for negotiation. The speaker stressed that publisher does not only mean national newspapers. It can include a wide range of organisations whose work appears through search. In mobile, the same logic reaches app distribution, search choice on phones and access to the NFC chip that allows tap-to-pay services.

The speech then moved to office software, cloud services and AI. These can sound like back-room technical issues, but they matter because huge numbers of UK firms and public bodies depend on them every day. The CMA said its investigation into Microsoft's business software is about whether customers can choose the best tools, switch more easily and combine services from different suppliers as AI becomes part of standard workplace software. Cloud raised an even bigger lesson. Terms such as multi-cloud, interoperability and egress fees may not make headlines, yet they can affect billions of pounds of spending. When a small number of providers can make switching difficult, the question is not only price. It is also resilience, public sector dependence and how much room the UK has to make its own choices. That is why the speech linked competition with sovereignty.

On method, the CMA's defence was that the UK regime is meant to be flexible. Its strongest designation is called strategic market status, or SMS, for firms with a powerful gatekeeping role. From there, the regulator can use conduct requirements, accept commitments or pursue other targeted measures. The speech said there are already three formal conduct requirements on Google in search, while parallel mobile steering requirements are being consulted on for Apple and Google. It also said more measures were planned, including work on iOS NFC access and search choice screens. The regulator pointed to some earlier deals as proof that slower, negotiated routes can still matter. Commitments with Apple and Google on app store review, app ranking, data use and an Apple interoperability process came into force on 1 April. The speech said developers had already begun using that process, and that later that month Apple was due to publish its first annual interoperability transparency report, with compliance data from Apple and Google expected too.

Cloud shows the same mix of pressure and patience. The CMA said a voluntary process with Amazon and Microsoft had already produced changes around interoperability and multi-cloud, while keeping open the option of formal SMS action if progress stalled. It also said cloud licensing concerns were being considered within the wider Microsoft investigation, especially where licensing practices might limit customer choice as AI tools are folded into business software. The closing argument was blunt: being proportionate and participative does not mean being cosy. The CMA expects rows over hard questions, including whether AI assistants should appear on search choice screens and whether platform fees should reflect value or actual cost. **What this means for you:** the new digital markets regime is not really a story about paperwork. It is a story about who gets to set the terms in the digital services most of us rely on, and whether the UK is prepared to push back when too much power sits with too few companies.