DMCCA penalty #3: CMA fines StubHub over drip pricing

On 23 June 2026, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) announced that it had fined StubHub UK for engaging in drip pricing. StubHub UK is one of the largest platforms to buy and sell tickets for live shows and events.  

StubHub was fined £889,200 by the CMA after settling the case early and receiving a 40% penalty reduction. Without the 40% settlement discount, StubHub would have been fined in the region of £1,482,000.

In addition, StubHub has been ordered to repay £590,000 to affected customers as part of a compensation order. Customers are expected to receive an average payout of around £10 per transaction, with StubHub responsible for administering the repayments directly.

The combination of penalties and compensation orders for affected consumers is becoming a reoccurring theme for the CMA’s consumer protection enforcement under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA).  StubHub’s compensation order of £590,000 brings the cumulative amount of compensation to customers to £1.95 million. Shortly after the StubHub announcement, the CMA publicised guidance on how customers can get money back if the CMA orders refunds or compensation.

This is the third in a series of civil penalties imposed by the CMA using its new powers under the DMCCA. The CMA has previously fined Marks Electrical £1.32 million and the AA and BSM £4.2 million.  

What happened?

The CMA found that StubHub was not displaying the total price upfront to customers when purchasing tickets, contrary to s230 of the DMCCA.  

From 6 April 2025 to 7 December 2025, customers purchasing tickets on StubHub were forced to pay mandatory costs such as delivery and service fees. These mandatory costs were not displayed from the outset of the purchasing process and were unavoidable at checkout.  

StubHub has attributed the issues identified by the CMA during the relevant period to an isolated platform error that is not part of its business model and has stated that its platform is designed to display all fees upfront.  

Following the launch of the investigation, StubHub swiftly took steps to end the prohibited drip pricing practices. This, together with the apparent platform error, may have partly explained why the relevant penalty (pre-settlement discount) was so much lower than the penalty imposed by the CMA on the AA and BSM for engaging in drip pricing, where the pre-settlement penalty was £7million.

That said, DMCCA penalties are linked to annual turnover and influenced by a number of factors, so we await publication of the Final Infringement Notice (FIN) for detail on the CMA’s penalty calculation process.  

What is drip pricing?  

Drip pricing is the practice of omitting mandatory charges from the headline price displayed in an invitation to purchase, and then ‘dripping’ the charge as the customer moves toward checkout. This results in a different end price for the customer to the one initially shown.  

This is the second fine from the CMA regarding drip pricing, the first being the AA and BSM, and clearly demonstrates the CMA’s keen focus on tackling drip pricing.  

As stated by Emma Cochrane, Executive Director of Consumer Protection at the CMA, the “message to businesses is simple: be transparent on costs or risk CMA action.”

Key takeaways

The CMA is clamping down on opaque pricing practices, and the StubHub decision is another clear reminder that pricing transparency should be built into the customer journey from the outset.  

1. Check online purchasing flows. Businesses that haven’t already done so should check any mandatory charges are demonstrated to customers from the outset.  
2. Check CMA guidance. In the AA and BSM FIN, the CMA found the businesses had a high level of culpability due to the CMA guidance on drip pricing available during the infringement period. The CMA published guidance on price transparency requirements under the DMCCA in November 2025.
3. Consider settling early with the CMA. In both the AA and BSM and the StubHub cases, early settlement with the CMA has reduced financial penalties by 40%. In drip pricing cases which often involve ‘analogue’ compliance issues, settling early can reduce the fine and limit overall investigation costs.
4. The CMA is committed to tackling drip pricing. The pace and frequency of the CMA’s enforcement action under the DMCCA suggests that further penalties should be expected. The CMA’s consumer enforcement investigations into Viagogo, Gold's Gym, Wayfair and Appliances Direct remain.

TLT’s Consumer Law team has extensive experience working with digital platforms, retailers and online marketplaces on UX design and pricing transparency rules. Get in touch with the team if you’d like to discuss these issues.

Subscribe to TLT's Consumer Law Snapshots

Authors: Rebecca Regan and Tessa Lloyd

This publication is intended for general guidance and represents our understanding of the relevant law and practice as at June 2026.  For more information see our terms & conditions.