top of page
CMA enforcement action pt 1 – fake countdowns

5 min read

Explained

Created on:

28 Nov 2025

Last updated:

28 Nov 2025

CMA enforcement action pt 1 – fake countdowns
TL;DR:

Using new powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act, the CMA has opened investigations into 8 businesses that it suspects may have broken consumer law with their online pricing and sales practices, including ‘drip pricing’ and pressure selling.

'CMA launches major consumer protection drive focused on online pricing practices and investigates time-limited sales'

The CMA announced this week that they’ve started flexing the consumer protection powers that the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) granted them, beginning with 8 investigations into priority areas that include ‘misleading time-limited offers’ (i.e. fake deadlines and countdowns) and drip pricing.


The companies under investigation aren’t in the video games sector – they’re a grab-bag of driving instructors, gyms, ticketing sites (absolutely shocked about that), and furniture sellers. However, just because the CMA’s beady eye hasn’t fallen upon interactive entertainment, it doesn’t mean that it won’t, so it’s probably quite helpful to know what these practices might look like video games. Luckily for you, we can give you a hand.


To keep things manageable, this article focuses just on fake countdowns, with sequel on drip-pricing to follow shortly (a countdown timer to publication will not be provided, for fear of being inaccurate).


If you’re interested in tailored advice from our consumer protection regulatory specialist, we’d be happy to help. Drop us a line!

What is a misleading time limit?

Think of it as a countdown timer – not necessarily a literal one, but something that gives consumers a deadline for action and sets the clock ticking. Alongside actual countdown clocks, you’re looking at statements like “ends at midnight” and “this week only.” If the offer doesn’t end at the given deadline, you’re in trouble. As the CMA puts it in their unfair commercial practices guidance:

“Falsely stating that a product will only be available for a limited time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice”

Fans of UCPD and the CPRs may note that fake countdown timers were already prohibited (captured under regulatory activity over false urgency) and the DMCCA has not introduced new requirements per se. In fact, the CMA itself has taken action prior to the DMCCA. However, it’s making a very big deal of them right now because they’ve identified them as being of particular concern – they happen a lot and they drive up costs for consumers.


Consumers under pressure

Why is this such a serious consumer protection issue? After all, surely consumers benefit from a longer time to take advantage of an offer! Er, nope. Countdown timers create a sense of urgency, which means consumers feel pressured into making a decision. In the wise words of the ASA, countdown timers are “likely to pressurise consumers into making a quick purchase without giving it proper consideration” – a distortion of their economic behaviour (we nicked that wording from UCPD). If they’re doing this on the basis of unclear or false information, that’s clearly unfair


Things not to do

The CMA is looking at whether a furniture store and an appliance seller’s “time-limited sales ended when they said they would”. They haven’t given specific details beyond this, but as the ASA (who uses the same regulatory principles) has considered it several times over the years, we can get a sense of what’s likely to be going on. Here are three key scenarios: 


Just one thing after another

Most probable is either an actual countdown timer that simply resets at zero, or a slightly more complex scenario where a time-limited sale ended and was immediately replaced with something very similar.


The CMA guidance gives the classic example:


“A trader falsely tells a consumer that an offer will end when a countdown clock runs out in order to pressure them into making an immediate decision to buy. When the time runs down, the offer does not in fact end, but continues and the countdown clock restarts.”


As per the ASA examples above, traders have also been known to immediately follow one promotion with another that just-so-happens to offer pretty much the same discount on the same products.


For video games, the most relevant context is going to be an in-game item store with limited-time discounts or one-off items/bundles. If you’re promoting something with a deadline, it needs to end when the timer reaches zero.


Nice to see you again! Or not.

However, this isn’t just about an unbroken chain of time-limited offers – it can still apply if the offer ends but then appears again. This might be a discount that is reused shortly after it ended, even if there’s a break, or an offer that appeared to be a one-off but then comes back.


Handily for us, the CMA’s guidance has an example of this type of bad practice in a video games context:


“An app-based game offers ‘skins’ to change the appearance of the player’s avatar in the in-game store. A new skin is offered for £1.99 with the message ‘exclusive opportunity – only available for 5 days’. However, 10 days later, the same skin is offered in the store again.”


This doesn’t necessarily only include limited edition items – it could extend to scenarios such as bundles with one-off combinations of existing items, especially if there’s something notable about it (such as a particularly efficient way of obtaining those items).


What are you waiting for?

Finally, this principle would also apply if the countdown was genuine, but it wasn’t clear what it was actually for. The ASA has previously looked at an instance where the countdown timer accompanied an “Up to 40% off + an extra 5% offer” – turns out that the countdown timer only referred to the extra 5% discount, so the 40% discount continued. Sadly for the advertiser, this wasn’t communicated well enough.


If you’re using a countdown timer, take a moment to really think about your syntax and whether you’ve been specific enough about what bit of the transaction is subject to the time limit.


TL;DR?

To be blunt, the principle here is that if you’re using a countdown timer or other deadline mechanic, it should be obvious what it’s counting down to and, crucially, when it reaches 00:00, that thing should happen.

How can Flux help me?

If you want to discuss how pricing regulation could affect your operations, it just so happens that we have a regulatory specialist with over 10 years’ experience in consumer protection and marketing compliance, including the ins and outs of pricing practice. Get in touch if you’d like someone to cast an eye over your current approach or advice on something you’ve got coming down the track.

Author: Dr Celia Pontin, Director of Public Policy and Public Affairs

bottom of page