How to Apply Ethics to Product, Price, Place and Promotion

I spent ten years on the account side of a personalisation vendor, and the pattern I saw most often was that by the time an ethical problem reaches the campaign, the campaign is the last place anyone can fix it. I watched clients lose customers to late deliveries and to stock data that was already wrong before it ever reached a marketing tool. We had every number needed to prove why the brand was underperforming. We had no say at all over its product, its pricing or its operations.

That is why this article does not begin with advertising. Marketing decisions affect safety, affordability, access, autonomy and the quality of information a customer has. Those effects begin when a product is designed, continue through its price and distribution, and only become visible when it is promoted.

This article applies ethical analysis to the established marketing-mix categories:

• Product: what is designed, supplied and supported;
• Price: what customers pay and how that price is presented;
• Place: where, how and to whom the offer is made available;
• Promotion: how the offer is described, targeted and endorsed.

The framework is intended to help marketing, product, pricing, e-commerce, customer-experience and compliance teams decide whether a proposed commercial choice should proceed, be revised, be escalated or be stopped.

What the ethical 4Ps framework is

The traditional marketing mix organises decisions around Product, Price, Place and Promotion. An ethical 4Ps review asks what customer interests are affected within each category, and whether the organisation can justify the resulting benefits, burdens and risks.

It turns a broad instruction such as “market responsibly” into four reviewable questions:

1. Product: Is the offer safe, usable, supportable and consistent with what customers are told?
2. Price: Can customers understand the total cost, and are pricing differences defensible?
3. Place: Can the intended audience obtain and use the offer without unjustified exclusion or obstruction?
4. Promotion: Are claims, disclosures, targeting and persuasive techniques accurate and proportionate?

What it is not

The phrase “4Ps of ethics” should not be presented as a universal moral theory or a settled academic model.

This article applies ethical questions to established marketing-mix categories. Other publications use “four principles”, “ethical Ps” or similarly named models built from different concepts. They should not be treated as interchangeable unless their definitions and evidence actually match.

The framework is also not:

• a substitute for legal advice;
• a complete data-protection or consumer-law audit;
• an AI-governance framework;
• a security architecture;
• a statement that every customer must receive an identical product, price or experience.

Its purpose is to structure judgement and make that judgement accountable.

Ethics and legal compliance are not identical

Law and regulatory guidance establish important minimum requirements. For example:

• products supplied in the UK must comply with applicable safety requirements;
• goods sold to consumers must meet statutory standards concerning quality, fitness for purpose and description;
• misleading omissions, hidden mandatory charges and false urgency may breach consumer law;
• objective advertising claims require adequate substantiation;
• paid or otherwise controlled promotional content must be recognisable as advertising.

The unfair commercial practices provisions of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 apply to practices occurring from 6 April 2025 (1)(2). They replaced the previous Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations framework. Section 225 sets out the general prohibition and treats a practice as unfair where it omits material information from an invitation to purchase (3). Schedule 20 lists thirty-two practices considered unfair in all circumstances (4). Separately, the Consumer Rights Act 2015 governs the quality, description and fitness of goods supplied to consumers (5).

Compliance does not answer every ethical question. A technically lawful design can still create avoidable exclusion, exploit predictable confusion, or place a disproportionate burden on people in difficult circumstances. The reverse is also true. An unfavourable outcome is not automatically evidence of unethical conduct. The decision should be assessed in context, supported by evidence, and compared with reasonable alternatives.

For a broader discussion of marketing principles, use the ethical-marketing pillar. For campaign-level review, see the guide to ethical rules of digital marketing.

Product ethics

Product ethics concerns what the organisation creates, supplies, enables and supports. It includes the physical or digital product, packaging, default settings, service conditions, instructions, after-sales support and the foreseeable effects of use.

Product safety, quality and fitness for purpose

A product should not be approved merely because a campaign can lawfully promote it. Teams should establish that the underlying offer is safe in normal and reasonably foreseeable use, performs as described, and is suitable for the purpose for which it is sold.

Current UK government guidance states that businesses making, importing, distributing or selling consumer products are responsible for ensuring their safety (6). In Great Britain the General Product Safety Regulations 2005 remain part of the applicable framework, and separate EU general product safety rules apply in Northern Ireland (6).

Evidence may include:

• safety and conformity assessments;
• technical documentation;
• quality-control results;
• user testing;
• incident and complaint data;
• limitations and contraindications;
• recall and corrective-action procedures;
• records demonstrating that product claims match tested performance.

A high complaint rate does not by itself prove that a product is unethical. It does require investigation when complaints indicate safety problems, undisclosed limitations, or a gap between the advertised and delivered experience.

Accessibility and design exclusion

Accessibility should be considered before launch, not added after complaints.

Teams should test whether people with visual, hearing, motor, cognitive or language-related needs can discover, understand, buy, use, cancel and obtain support for the product. The Equality Act 2010 imposes reasonable-adjustment duties in relevant service contexts (7). The duty is anticipatory: the EHRC statutory code explains that a service provider should consider disabled customers generally and change how a service is delivered where needed, rather than waiting for an individual to encounter a barrier (8). EHRC retailer guidance states expressly that the responsibility applies to customers using retail services in store or online (9).

The 2011 statutory code remains the operative code. An updated draft was laid before Parliament on 21 May 2026 and the scrutiny period ended on 9 July 2026, but the replacement had not been brought into force at the time of writing (8).

Neither the Act nor the code prescribes a specific technical conformance level, so an ethical review should also consider avoidable exclusions that a narrow compliance assessment would miss.

Warning signs include:

• essential features that cannot be used with assistive technologies;
• instructions available in only one inaccessible format;
• identity or payment checks that systematically reject legitimate users;
• support available only through a channel some customers cannot use;
• a simplified or accessible route that materially reduces customer rights or functionality.

Product lifecycle and planned obsolescence

A lifecycle review should consider durability, repairability, software support, compatibility, consumables, disposal and foreseeable environmental effects.

UK law addresses parts of this, though less comprehensively than the debate often assumes. Durability is one of the factors relevant to whether goods are of satisfactory quality under the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and the Act gives consumers a repair or replacement remedy where goods do not conform to the contract (5). Beyond that, obligations are product-specific rather than general. The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021 attach spare-part availability and repair-information requirements to named product groups including household washing machines, dishwashers, refrigerating appliances and electronic displays, not to consumer products at large (10). For consumer connectable products, the manufacturer must publish a defined minimum period for which security updates will be provided, expressed with an end date (11)(12). The legislation requires disclosure of that period. It does not set a universal minimum number of years (11).

There is therefore no general UK right to repair and no across-the-board software support duty. Ethical review has to do work that the law does not.

Planned obsolescence is not limited to deliberately causing physical failure. It may also arise through:

• ending necessary software support without reasonable notice;
• preventing repair or replacement of ordinary components;
• using compatibility changes to make functioning products unusable;
• making essential consumables unavailable;
• designing cancellation, data export or migration to be unreasonably difficult.

The ethical question is not whether every product must last indefinitely. It is whether the expected useful life, maintenance burden and end-of-support position are proportionate and communicated before purchase.

Manipulative product features

Some persuasive mechanisms form part of the product rather than the advertisement. Examples include streaks, variable rewards, autoplay, default sharing, artificial progress indicators and repeated prompts.

Online choice architecture can help customers navigate complex services, but it can also affect autonomy through the structure, information and pressure built into an interface (13).

The practical test is counterfactual. Would the product remain commercially viable if the customer could understand and reverse the choice without disproportionate effort?

Product claims and customer support

Product teams and promotional teams should work from the same evidence base. A feature must not be marketed more confidently than it was tested.

Customer support is part of the delivered product experience. A business should not advertise reassurance, guarantees or easy cancellation while designing support routes that make those promises difficult to use.

Product ethics decision table

Review element	Product test
Customer interest affected	Safety, usability, accessibility, durability, informed choice and support
Ethical question	Does the product deliver the benefit customers are led to expect, without avoidable harm or exclusion?
Evidence required	Test results, conformity records, accessibility testing, complaints, lifecycle assumptions and support data
Regulatory relevance	Product safety, consumer rights, equality duties, ecodesign and connectable-product rules, misleading claims
Practical test	Ask a representative customer to use, repair, cancel and obtain support without internal assistance
Warning sign	Marketing promises exceed tested performance, or foreseeable limitations are hidden
Accountable owner	Product owner, supported by quality, legal, accessibility and customer-support leads
Stop condition	Unresolved safety risk, material claim without evidence, or exclusion from an essential function with no defensible alternative

Price ethics

Price ethics is not a requirement to charge the lowest price, or the same price to everyone. It concerns whether the total price is understandable, the method is defensible, and the resulting treatment is proportionate.

Hidden fees and drip pricing

Customers should be able to identify a realistic total price early enough to compare alternatives and decide whether to continue.

The statutory route runs through section 230 of the DMCC Act, which requires the total price to be given in an invitation to purchase (14). The total price includes mandatory fees, taxes, charges and other unavoidable payments capable of advance calculation. Where a mandatory charge cannot be calculated in advance, the method of calculation must be given with equivalent prominence. Information is treated as omitted unless it is provided clearly, promptly, and in a way consumers are likely to see (14). Showing a headline price and introducing mandatory charges later is the practice commonly described as drip pricing, and the CMA’s price transparency guidance sets out how it assesses presentation, prominence and partitioned pricing (15).

A pricing review should map every compulsory amount, including:

• booking or administration fees;
• non-optional service charges;
• compulsory delivery or fulfilment charges;
• taxes;
• required add-ons;
• minimum commitments;
• renewal prices;
• charges triggered by a default choice.

Optional extras may be shown separately, but they must not be preselected or designed to appear compulsory when they are not. The CMA has published specific guidance on obtaining express consent for additional charges when selling online, covering pre-ticked boxes, default opt-ins and automatically added products (16).

Personalised pricing and fairness

Personalised pricing is not inherently unethical, and uniform pricing is not automatically fair.

Personalisation may reduce a price for some customers, make an offer viable for a new group, or support targeted discounts. It may also create harm where the method is opaque, competition is weak, customers cannot avoid a premium, or the data operates as a proxy for vulnerability. The CMA’s assessment is consistently context-dependent: personalised pricing can be beneficial, including by lowering search costs or enabling targeted discounts, and it can also lead to consumer harm where competition is insufficient or the practice is not transparent (17).

The review should distinguish:

• dynamic pricing, where prices respond to market conditions such as demand or capacity;
• segment pricing, where defined customer groups receive different terms;
• personalised pricing, where information about an individual influences the price presented.

On dynamic pricing specifically, the CMA ran a cross-economy project rather than an enforcement investigation, and closed it following its June 2025 update. That update recognised that dynamic pricing can improve allocation, availability and competition, while potentially causing unfairness, confusion or loss of trust depending on implementation (18). Closure of the project does not mean the topic is settled: case-specific enforcement and monitoring continue.

For EU-facing consumer transactions, EU law contains a specific information requirement where a price is personalised through automated decision-making (19).

Where customer data affects pricing, the pricing review should link to the ethical use of consumer data and record the data sources, inference, lawful basis and customer controls.

Discounts and reference prices

A discount should be measured against a genuine, relevant comparison.

The CAP Code requires price comparisons to make their basis clear and prohibits false claims of a price advantage. Comparisons with a recommended retail price may mislead where that price differs materially from the price at which the product is generally sold (20).

Review:

• how long the reference price applied;
• whether meaningful sales occurred at that price;
• whether the products being compared are equivalent;
• whether “up to” savings are representative;
• whether a loyalty price is presented as a discount when the non-member price is artificial;
• whether conditions or exclusions are prominent.

One point from the account side. A discount can satisfy every disclosure rule and still fail a test you would want it to pass. A French beauty retail chain I worked with sent its loyal segment a discount thirty days after purchase. For five months the dashboard looked excellent, with strong opens, clicks and conversions. We then held the discount back from a control group. Opens were similar, clicks were lower, and the difference in conversions was two per cent. The programme was mostly paying people who were going to buy anyway.

That is a commercial finding rather than a legal one. It still belongs in a pricing review, because a discount that changes nothing is still presented to a customer as a reason to act now.

Scarcity, urgency and subscription renewal

Scarcity and urgency claims require live, reliable evidence. A countdown that resets, an invented stock warning, or an “ending today” sale that routinely continues interferes with the customer’s ability to evaluate the offer. In November 2025 the CMA opened a consumer protection drive focused on online pricing practices, including misleading time-limited offers and countdown-style pressure, alongside mandatory fees and automatic opt-ins (21). Opening an investigation is not a finding of infringement, and the CMA stated that it had reached no conclusions about the businesses involved (21).

There is also a commercial cost to urgency that is not a legal question at all. Reflexively matching a competitor’s discount teaches customers to abandon their buying cycle and wait for the next reaction, and sometimes you match the offer and lose them anyway. The diagnostic I use on a new account is simple: look at where conversion peaks fall across the year. If they appear only during sale periods, with no smaller lift around new-season releases, the customer base has been trained to buy on discount alone. That is worth knowing before anyone designs another countdown.

Recurring contracts require particular care, because the financial consequence occurs after the initial decision. Teams should clearly communicate:

• trial length;
• price after the trial;
• renewal frequency;
• minimum term;
• cancellation method;
• notice requirements;
• material price changes.

The DMCC Act contains a subscription-contract regime in Part 4, Chapter 2, but its substantive obligations have not been commenced. Secondary legislation is required first, and the government’s stated expectation is that the rules will come into force in spring 2027 (22)(23). That remained the position on the CMA’s guidance as recently as 22 July 2026 (22). They should not be described as operative today. Existing contract, consumer-protection and advertising requirements continue to apply in the meantime.

Price ethics decision table

Review element	Price test
Customer interest affected	Affordability, comparability, predictability, autonomy and equal treatment
Ethical question	Can the business justify the total price, its presentation, and any differences between customers?
Evidence required	Full fee map, pricing logic, comparison history, disparity analysis, renewal journey and complaint data
Regulatory relevance	DMCC sections 225 and 230, CMA price transparency and additional-charges guidance, CAP pricing rules, sector regulation
Practical test	Compare the first displayed price with the unavoidable amount paid by a typical customer
Warning sign	A low headline price depends on compulsory charges disclosed only late in the journey
Accountable owner	Pricing or commercial lead, supported by finance, data, legal and customer-experience teams
Stop condition	Mandatory charge omitted, false urgency, indefensible disparity, or pricing logic that cannot be explained internally

Place and distribution ethics

Place concerns more than logistics. It includes physical and digital channels, platforms, marketplaces, geographic coverage, fulfilment, eligibility, discoverability, and the interface through which customers obtain the offer.

Access and exclusion

Not every product must be available everywhere. Ethical concerns arise when restrictions are arbitrary, hidden, or likely to create disproportionate harm.

Review:

• geographic and territorial restrictions;
• delivery exclusions;
• device or browser requirements;
• payment-method limitations;
• language and accessibility;
• account or identity requirements;
• availability of non-digital alternatives;
• differences between acquisition and cancellation channels.

A legitimate operational restriction should have a documented reason and, where proportionate, a workable alternative.

Platform, marketplace and AI-mediated discovery

A marketplace or comparison service influences customer decisions through rankings, filters, defaults, labels and seller-admission rules.

Teams should establish:

• whether paid placement affects ranking;
• whether sponsored results are identifiable;
• how unsafe or misleading listings are detected;
• whether reviews are genuine and representative;
• how complaints and removals are handled;
• whether high-friction exit routes favour the platform’s commercial interest.

Reviews in particular have moved from a trust question to a regulated one. Schedule 20 of the DMCC Act prohibits submitting or commissioning a fake consumer review, submitting or commissioning a review that conceals that it was incentivised, publishing reviews or review information in a misleading way, and publishing reviews without taking reasonable and proportionate steps to prevent and remove prohibited material (24). The CMA’s detailed guidance applies to any trader publishing reviews or derived review information, including a business displaying reviews on its own website (25). Republishing reviews collected by someone else does not move the responsibility elsewhere, and an agreement under which a platform monitors reviews does not remove the trader’s own duty (26). An incentivised review is not prohibited in itself. Concealing the incentive is.

The same questions now apply where an AI assistant or agent sits between the customer and the offer. In March 2026 the CMA published guidance on complying with consumer law when using AI agents, connecting existing consumer-law principles to AI-mediated interfaces, including steering, pressure, misleading recommendations, ranking transparency and disclosure of the limits of a search (27). This does not create an AI-specific consumer-law regime. It applies the existing one to a newer interface.

The design should not make a preferred commercial outcome appear to be the only normal or safe choice.

Vulnerable audiences and interface friction

Friction is not always harmful. Additional checks may prevent fraud, unsafe purchases or accidental cancellation. The issue is whether friction is applied consistently and in the customer’s interest.

A warning sign is asymmetric friction. Joining, upgrading or accepting tracking requires one step, while declining, downgrading, returning or cancelling requires a substantially harder journey.

It is also worth saying that reducing friction is not automatically a customer benefit, because the right amount depends on what the customer is trying to do. In fashion, easing the route to the basket and sending advertising traffic straight to category pages worked well. We applied the same treatment at a European automotive brand and bounce rates went up. We stopped the campaign and spent the effort on making the product detail pages easier to read instead, which improved both bounce and overall engagement. A car buyer wants to read and compare. Removing the reading is not a favour.

Place ethics decision table

Review element	Place test
Customer interest affected	Access, discoverability, practical usability, geographic fairness and freedom to leave
Ethical question	Does the channel enable appropriate access without concealed preference, unjustified exclusion or obstructive friction?
Evidence required	Coverage analysis, accessibility tests, ranking logic, seller controls, fulfilment data and journey testing
Regulatory relevance	Equality duties, consumer law, platform responsibilities, fake-review rules, AI-agent guidance, product safety and sector rules
Practical test	Compare the easiest commercial route with the route for declining, returning or leaving
Warning sign	Commercially favourable actions are effortless while customer-protective actions are obstructed
Accountable owner	Channel, marketplace or e-commerce owner
Stop condition	Unsafe distribution, undisclosed ranking influence, inaccessible essential route, or restriction without defensible rationale

Promotion ethics

Promotion ethics concerns what is claimed, what is omitted, who receives the message, and how the message influences them.

Claims and substantiation

The CAP Code requires marketers to hold documentary evidence before publishing objective claims that are capable of substantiation. Qualifications must be clear and must not contradict the main claim (20).

A claim file should contain:

• the exact wording approved;
• the likely customer interpretation;
• supporting evidence;
• methodology and date;
• material limitations;
• applicable audience and territory;
• approval owner;
• expiry or review date.

Evidence should support the impression created by the whole communication, not merely a narrow literal reading of it.

Environmental claims

Environmental claims should identify what part of the product, service or business they concern, and the basis of comparison.

ASA and CAP guidance states that the basis of an environmental claim must be clear, and that an unqualified claim may mislead by omitting material information (28). CMA guidance also expects businesses to consider the full lifecycle where relevant, rather than selecting only a favourable stage (29).

Terms such as “sustainable”, “green”, “responsible”, “carbon neutral” and “better for the planet” require a defined scope, methodology and supporting evidence.

Influencers and endorsements

Marketing communications must be obviously identifiable as marketing. That obligation applies when commercial relationships are expressed through creators, employees, affiliates, gifted products or other endorsements (30).

The decision to settle upstream is who carries responsibility, because the answer is not the creator alone. Payment, gifts, incentives, affiliate commission, ownership or another commercial connection can each trigger disclosure (31). In affiliate marketing, both the affiliate and the business whose products are promoted are responsible under the CAP Code, even where the affiliate created the content with no input from the business (32). Responsibility is allocated across the creator, the brand and any agent involved in creating or publishing the content (33), and consumer-law guidance for creators applies regardless of audience size (34).

A brand and its intermediary should agree who checks compliance. Contractual delegation does not remove accountability, and a promotion that works only because the audience misreads who is speaking has an upstream problem rather than a disclosure problem.

Targeting, stereotypes and vulnerability

A promotion may be accurate in isolation and still irresponsible in its targeting or emotional pressure.

Review whether the campaign:

• exploits financial distress, illness, bereavement, loneliness or compulsive behaviour;
• targets children with unsuitable products or direct pressure;
• uses stereotypes likely to cause harm;
• infers vulnerability and then uses it to increase urgency;
• excludes groups from beneficial offers without justification;
• combines precise targeting with claims the audience is unlikely to assess critically.

The CAP Code requires particular care for children, and states that marketing must not exploit their credulity, loyalty, vulnerability or lack of experience (35).

There is no standalone cross-sector UK guide on marketing to people in vulnerable circumstances. The operative test sits inside general unfair commercial practices guidance, which assesses a practice from the perspective of the average member of a vulnerable group where that group is particularly vulnerable and the vulnerability was reasonably foreseeable (1). The test is objective, so it does not require proof that any individual was harmed.

There is a quieter failure mode worth naming, because it is common and nobody writes it into a governance document. Brands keep requesting the campaign types that look most impressive internally rather than the ones the numbers justify. Tab-title changes, social proof widgets and homepage-slider personalisation are easy to present in a quarterly review and hard to defend on cost and benefit. I was once entitled to report a conversion uplift of roughly forty-five per cent on a tab-title campaign and never believed the figure, because the mechanism could not plausibly have produced it. A campaign that exists to be shown to your own executives is not automatically unethical. It is, however, the kind of decision that no one has actually reviewed, and unreviewed decisions are where the ethical problems accumulate.

For campaign-level evidence requirements, disclosure placement, interface testing, approvals and stop conditions, use the ethical digital-marketing checklist. This article decides whether the promotional approach is defensible. That one decides whether a specific execution may launch.

Where targeting depends on customer profiles or inferred characteristics, use the consumer-data ethics framework as a separate data review. AI-specific targeting and optimisation should also be assessed under the guide to AI ethics in marketing.

Promotion ethics decision table

Review element	Promotion test
Customer interest affected	Accurate information, autonomy, dignity, non-discrimination and protection from pressure
Ethical question	Does the communication help the intended audience evaluate the offer, without deception or exploitation?
Evidence required	Claim file, audience analysis, disclosure checks, targeting criteria, creative testing and complaints
Regulatory relevance	CAP and BCAP Codes, DMCC unfair-practice provisions, influencer and endorsement guidance, environmental-claims guidance, sector rules and data-protection law
Practical test	Ask what a typical audience member is likely to understand, not what the drafting team intended
Warning sign	The commercial effect depends on the customer overlooking a limitation or misunderstanding the messenger
Accountable owner	Campaign owner, with legal, regulatory, data and brand review where relevant
Stop condition	Unsubstantiated material claim, hidden advertising, false urgency, or targeting that exploits vulnerability

Applying the four-part review

A proportionate review can follow eight steps:

1. Describe the decision. Record what will change and which customers will experience it.
2. Identify the affected P or Ps. Do not force a decision into only one category.
3. Define the customer interests. State the potential benefit, burden and risk.
4. Check the legal floor. Identify applicable law, codes, contracts and sector rules.
5. Collect evidence. Include customer research, testing, complaints and distributional outcomes.
6. Consider alternatives. Ask whether the same objective can be achieved with less harm or greater clarity.
7. Assign ownership. Name the person who can approve, revise or stop the decision.
8. Record and monitor. Set review triggers and outcome measures.

Step eight carries more weight than it looks. I refereed football for three seasons, in public, with no take-backs, and the habit that survived from it is explaining the reasoning at the moment of the decision. A call that was wrong but reasoned stays understandable afterwards, and can be argued with on its merits. A call made on instinct, with no stated reason, cannot be defended or corrected later, because there is nothing on the record to examine. Commercial decisions behave the same way. Write down why you approved it, and being wrong stays survivable.

A review should be completed before launch wherever the decision could materially affect safety, total cost, eligibility, customer autonomy or a vulnerable audience.

4Ps ethics scorecard

Score each question 0, 1 or 2:

• 0: unsupported, unknown or unacceptable;
• 1: partly addressed, but controls or evidence are incomplete;
• 2: supported, proportionate and monitored.

P	Question
Product	Is the offer safe and consistent with its description?
Product	Can intended customers use it without avoidable exclusion?
Product	Are lifecycle limits and support commitments clear?
Price	Is the unavoidable total price visible early enough?
Price	Are discounts, differences and renewals evidence-based?
Place	Are access restrictions and rankings explainable?
Place	Is declining or leaving no harder than necessary?
Promotion	Are objective claims substantiated and qualified?
Promotion	Are advertising relationships obvious?
Promotion	Is targeting proportionate for the audience?

A total score should not override a stop condition. One unresolved safety risk or material deception cannot be averaged away by stronger performance elsewhere.

Frequently Asked Questions

Conclusion

An ethical review of Product, Price, Place and Promotion makes marketing accountability concrete.

It asks whether the product is safe and usable, the price is understandable and defensible, the channel enables appropriate access, and the promotion supports informed rather than manipulated choice.

The value of the framework lies in evidence and stop authority. A completed checklist is worth nothing when the underlying product is unsafe, the unavoidable price is concealed, access is unjustifiably obstructed, or a material claim cannot be substantiated. And the part that matters most is the part nobody enjoys: writing down who decided, and why, while the decision is still being made.

References

1. Competition and Markets Authority, Unfair commercial practices, statutory guidance, ref. CMA207, published 4 April 2025, updated 18 November 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/unfair-commercial-practices-cma207/unfair-commercial-practices
2. Secretary of State, The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Commencement No. 2) Regulations 2025, statutory instrument, SI 2025/272, made 4 March 2025. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2025/272/made
3. UK Parliament, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, section 225, primary legislation, 2024 c.13. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/section/225
4. UK Parliament, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Schedule 20: Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair, primary legislation, 2024 c.13. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/schedule/20
5. UK Parliament, Consumer Rights Act 2015, primary legislation, 2015 c.15, Royal Assent 26 March 2015. See section 9 on satisfactory quality including durability, and section 23 on the repair or replacement remedy. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/contents
6. Office for Product Safety and Standards, Department for Business and Trade, Product safety advice for businesses, government guidance, published 29 March 2019, updated 21 July 2026. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/product-safety-advice-for-businesses
7. UK Parliament, Equality Act 2010, primary legislation, 2010 c.15. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2010/15/contents
8. Equality and Human Rights Commission, Services, public functions and associations: Code of Practice, statutory code of practice, published 1 January 2011, page updated 14 July 2026. An updated draft code was laid before Parliament on 21 May 2026 and had not been brought into force at the time of writing. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/codes-practice/services-public-functions-and-associations-code-practice-0
9. Equality and Human Rights Commission, Retailers’ legal responsibility to disabled customers, official guidance, published 1 September 2021. https://www.equalityhumanrights.com/guidance/retailers-legal-responsibility-disabled-customers
10. Secretary of State, The Ecodesign for Energy-Related Products and Energy Information Regulations 2021, statutory instrument, SI 2021/745, made 18 June 2021, principally in force 1 July 2021. Applies to specified product groups in Great Britain, not to consumer products generally. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2021/745/contents/made
11. Secretary of State, The Product Security and Telecommunications Infrastructure (Security Requirements for Relevant Connectable Products) Regulations 2023, statutory instrument, SI 2023/1007, made 14 September 2023, in force 29 April 2024. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2023/1007/contents/made
12. Office for Product Safety and Standards and Department for Science, Innovation and Technology, Regulations: consumer connectable product security, regulatory guidance, published 8 January 2024, updated 17 March 2025. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/regulations-consumer-connectable-product-security
13. Competition and Markets Authority, Evidence Review of Online Choice Architecture and Consumer and Competition Harm, evidence review, ref. CMA157, published 5 April 2022. Described by the CMA as reference material rather than binding guidance. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/online-choice-architecture-how-digital-design-can-harm-competition-and-consumers/evidence-review-of-online-choice-architecture-and-consumer-and-competition-harm
14. UK Parliament, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, section 230, primary legislation, 2024 c.13. See in particular subsections (2), (4), (5) and (9). https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/section/230
15. Competition and Markets Authority, Unfair commercial practices: price transparency, guidance, ref. CMA209, published 18 November 2025, page updated 7 January 2026. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/price-transparency-cma209
16. Competition and Markets Authority, Getting consent for additional charges when selling online, guidance, published 18 November 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/getting-consent-for-additional-charges-when-selling-online
17. Competition and Markets Authority, Data, Technology and Analytics Unit, Algorithms: How they can reduce competition and harm consumers, research and analysis, published 19 January 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/algorithms-how-they-can-reduce-competition-and-harm-consumers
18. Competition and Markets Authority, Update: dynamic pricing, policy paper, published 20 June 2025. The associated cross-economy project is recorded as closed. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/dynamic-pricing-project-update/update-dynamic-pricing
19. European Parliament and Council of the European Union, Directive (EU) 2019/2161 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 27 November 2019 amending Council Directive 93/13/EEC and Directives 98/6/EC, 2005/29/EC and 2011/83/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council as regards the better enforcement and modernisation of Union consumer protection rules, directive, CELEX 32019L2161. EU law, not UK law. https://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/HTML/?uri=CELEX%3A32019L2161
20. Committee of Advertising Practice, 03 Misleading advertising, CAP Code section, no publication or update date displayed. Self-regulatory code applied by the ASA. https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/03.html
21. Competition and Markets Authority, CMA launches major consumer protection drive focused on online pricing practices, press release, published 18 November 2025. The CMA stated that it had reached no conclusions on whether the businesses concerned had broken the law. https://www.gov.uk/government/news/cma-launches-major-consumer-protection-drive-focused-on-online-pricing-practices
22. Competition and Markets Authority, Writing a fair contract for customers, guidance, published 23 March 2016, updated 22 July 2026. States that the subscription rules are expected to come into force in spring 2027. https://www.gov.uk/guidance/writing-a-fair-contract-for-customers
23. Department for Business and Trade, Government response to consultation on the implementation of the new subscription contracts regime, consultation outcome, published 2 April 2026. Confirms that secondary legislation is required and anticipates commencement in spring 2027. https://www.gov.uk/government/consultations/consultation-on-the-implementation-of-the-new-subscription-contracts-regime/outcome/government-response-to-consultation-on-the-implementation-of-the-new-subscription-contracts-regime-web-accessible-version
24. UK Parliament, Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Schedule 20, paragraph 13, primary legislation, 2024 c.13. Covers fake reviews, concealed incentivised reviews, misleading publication of review information, and the duty to take reasonable and proportionate steps. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2024/13/schedule/20/paragraph/13
25. Competition and Markets Authority, Fake reviews, guidance, ref. CMA208, published 4 April 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/fake-reviews
26. Competition and Markets Authority, Reviews and social media endorsements: guidance for businesses and brands, regulator guidance, published 19 June 2015, updated 28 August 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/reviews-and-social-media-endorsements-guidance-for-businesses-and-brands
27. Competition and Markets Authority, Complying with consumer law when using AI agents, guidance, published 9 March 2026. Applies existing consumer law to AI-mediated interfaces rather than creating a separate regime. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/complying-with-consumer-law-when-using-ai-agents
28. Advertising Standards Authority and Committee of Advertising Practice, Environmental claims: General “Green” claims, regulatory advice, no publication or update date displayed on the page. https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/environmental-claims-general-green-claims.html
29. Competition and Markets Authority, Green claims code: making environmental claims, regulatory guidance, published 20 September 2021. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/green-claims-code-making-environmental-claims
30. Committee of Advertising Practice, 02 Recognition of marketing communications, CAP Code section, no publication or update date displayed. Self-regulatory code applied by the ASA. https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/02.html
31. Committee of Advertising Practice, Recognising ads: Social media and influencer marketing, AdviceOnline guidance, page dated 26 September 2025. https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/recognising-ads-social-media.html
32. Committee of Advertising Practice, Online Affiliate Marketing, AdviceOnline guidance, page dated 22 March 2023. https://www.asa.org.uk/advice-online/affiliate-marketing.html
33. Committee of Advertising Practice and Competition and Markets Authority, Influencers’ guide to making clear that ads are ads, joint guidance, third edition published 23 March 2023. The landing page records that the guide is awaiting update following the DMCC Act 2024, and that the advice remains broadly correct although its legal underpinning has changed. https://www.asa.org.uk/resource/influencers-guide.html
34. Competition and Markets Authority, Social media endorsements: guidance for content creators, regulator guidance, published 23 January 2019, updated 3 September 2025. https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/social-media-endorsements-guidance-for-content-creators
35. Committee of Advertising Practice, 05 Children, CAP Code section, no publication or update date displayed. Self-regulatory code applied by the ASA. https://www.asa.org.uk/type/non_broadcast/code_section/05.html

Position stated as at 28 July 2026. Regulatory guidance changes, and several of the sources above are marked by their publishers as under review. Check the linked sources before relying on any statement of the current legal position.