LoginSubscribe Now
Follow Us
Sign up to our free newsletter
Solicitors Journal LogoInforming the legal profession since 1856

Find the knowledge you need from the SJ library of over 20,000 legal articles

Search now
Solicitors Journal Logo
  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports
  • AI Search
  • Digital Edition
  • Subscription Options
  • Advertise with Us
    • About Us
    • Contact Us
    • FAQ
    • Guide to Authors
Solicitors Journal

Informing the legal profession since 1856.

Follow us

Topics

  • Legal News
  • Opinion
  • Features
  • Practice Notes
  • Business
  • International
  • Court Reports

About

  • About Us
  • Contact Us
  • Advertise with Us
  • FAQ
  • Guide to Authors

Subscribe

  • Subscription Options
  • Digital Edition
  • Free Newsletter

Editorial

editorial@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Subscriptions

subscriptions@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

Advertising

Advertise with usadvertising@solicitorsjournal.com+44 (0)1223 750 755

© 2026 Solicitors Journal in partnership with the International In-house Counsel Journal

ISSN 0038-1047  ·  Images: Freepix, Unsplash and by permission of the authors

Terms and ConditionsCookie PolicyPrivacy PolicyPLS Clear logoCopyright & permissions
Suzanne TownleySuzanne Townley

News Editor, Solicitors Journal

ComparetheMarket face collective consumer claim following competition breach

1 Nov 2021|News|Add your comment
Share:
ComparetheMarket face collective consumer claim following competition breach

By Suzanne Townley

The price comparison site received a £17.9m fine for competition breaches last year

The Home Insurance Consumer Action Group has today (1 November 2021) filed an opt-out collective claim against price comparison site ComparetheMarket on behalf of over 20m UK consumers of home insurance.

In November 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) fined ComparetheMarket £17.9m after it found the price comparison site had breached competition law in contracts with certain insurers that listed on its website.  

Contracts with 32 insurers included wide ‘most favoured nation’ clauses which restricted those insurers from offering consumers lower prices on other comparison websites over two years.

The CMA concluded ComparetheMarket’s conduct affected competition between price comparison websites and the home insurers that listed on them.  It also found consumers who purchased home insurance via a price comparison website were likely to have paid higher prices as a result of ComparetheMarket’s actions.

ComparetheMarket has appealed the CMA’s decision and the appeal is being heard in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Home Insurance Consumer Action will ask the CAT to stay its claim pending the outcome of ComparetheMarket’s appeal.

In the proceedings issued today, the Home Insurance Consumer Action Group claims ComparetheMarket’s conduct caused all purchasers of home insurance to overpay for their policies, whether those policies were purchased via ComparetheMarket, from another price comparison website or purchased or renewed via other means, such as direct from an insurer. 

It believes it is likely all purchases and renewals of home insurance made between 1 October 2015 and 1 June 2020 were affected by ComparetheMarket’s conduct – however, the scope of the claim is subject to further review and analysis.

Kate Wellington, director of Home Insurance Consumer Action Limited, said: “Price comparison websites should play an important role in allowing consumers to make informed pricing decisions. 

“Unfortunately, ComparetheMarket’s anti-competitive conduct achieved the opposite of this and looks likely to have increased prices of home insurance for over 20 million UK consumers.  I am determined that consumers who have overpaid should be refunded and I’m delighted to be leading this claim.”

The Home Insurance Consumer Action Group has instructed London law firm Hausfeld to act on its behalf. Leading the team is partner, Nicola Boyle. She said: “The Competition and Markets Authority has found that ComparetheMarket infringed competition law and it is right that consumers who have been forced to pay higher prices due to this conduct are effectively compensated.”

Related Topics

  • Litigation
  • The Bar
  • Courts, Tribunals & Judiciary
  • Solicitors

Comments

Latest Articles

The Home Insurance Consumer Action Group has today (1 November 2021) filed an opt-out collective claim against price comparison site ComparetheMarket on behalf of over 20m UK consumers of home insurance.

In November 2020, the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) fined ComparetheMarket £17.9m after it found the price comparison site had breached competition law in contracts with certain insurers that listed on its website.  

Contracts with 32 insurers included wide ‘most favoured nation’ clauses which restricted those insurers from offering consumers lower prices on other comparison websites over two years.

The CMA concluded ComparetheMarket’s conduct affected competition between price comparison websites and the home insurers that listed on them.  It also found consumers who purchased home insurance via a price comparison website were likely to have paid higher prices as a result of ComparetheMarket’s actions.

ComparetheMarket has appealed the CMA’s decision and the appeal is being heard in the Competition Appeal Tribunal (CAT). Home Insurance Consumer Action will ask the CAT to stay its claim pending the outcome of ComparetheMarket’s appeal.

In the proceedings issued today, the Home Insurance Consumer Action Group claims ComparetheMarket’s conduct caused all purchasers of home insurance to overpay for their policies, whether those policies were purchased via ComparetheMarket, from another price comparison website or purchased or renewed via other means, such as direct from an insurer. 

It believes it is likely all purchases and renewals of home insurance made between 1 October 2015 and 1 June 2020 were affected by ComparetheMarket’s conduct – however, the scope of the claim is subject to further review and analysis.

Kate Wellington, director of Home Insurance Consumer Action Limited, said: “Price comparison websites should play an important role in allowing consumers to make informed pricing decisions. 

“Unfortunately, ComparetheMarket’s anti-competitive conduct achieved the opposite of this and looks likely to have increased prices of home insurance for over 20 million UK consumers.  I am determined that consumers who have overpaid should be refunded and I’m delighted to be leading this claim.”

The Home Insurance Consumer Action Group has instructed London law firm Hausfeld to act on its behalf. Leading the team is partner, Nicola Boyle. She said: “The Competition and Markets Authority has found that ComparetheMarket infringed competition law and it is right that consumers who have been forced to pay higher prices due to this conduct are effectively compensated.”

Legal News desk contact: editorial@solicitorsjournal.com|PLS LogoCopyright & permissions
Upper Tribunal denies VAT zero-rating for secure mental health unit in NHS Ayrshire v HMRC
Solicitors Journal

Upper Tribunal denies VAT zero-rating for secure mental health unit in NHS Ayrshire v HMRC

Upper Tribunal upholds refusal of zero-rating for a secure adolescent unit's bedroom wing as hospital use.
News8 Jul 2026
Doctors face risks when whistleblowing in NHS
Solicitors Journal

Doctors face risks when whistleblowing in NHS

Healthcare professionals exposing NHS failings may suffer serious repercussions according to leading solicitors in Scotland
News8 Jul 2026
LSSA supports government home buying reform
Solicitors Journal

LSSA supports government home buying reform

The Legal Software Suppliers Association held a significant meeting in London to discuss home buying reforms and technology's role in implementation
News8 Jul 2026
High Court rejects Safe Passage International challenge to refugee family reunion suspension
Solicitors Journal

High Court rejects Safe Passage International challenge to refugee family reunion suspension

Coppel J dismisses all grounds against the Home Secretary's suspension of Appendix FRP for refugees.
Court Report8 Jul 2026
Upper Tribunal finds mast provider held no Code rights in On Tower v AP Wireless
Solicitors Journal

Upper Tribunal finds mast provider held no Code rights in On Tower v AP Wireless

Upper Tribunal holds a 2016 mast agreement was not a Code agreement despite an Ofcom direction.
Court Report8 Jul 2026
High Court settles meaning of church complaint email in Ameyaw v Anthony defamation claim
Solicitors Journal

High Court settles meaning of church complaint email in Ameyaw v Anthony defamation claim

High Court finds email alleging misconduct by youth minister conveyed guilt and was largely factual.
Court Report8 Jul 2026
Court of Appeal quashes Somali refugee's conviction in Adow after 18-year delay
Solicitors Journal

Court of Appeal quashes Somali refugee's conviction in Adow after 18-year delay

Court of Appeal quashes conviction after refugee not advised of section 31 Refugee Convention defence.
Court Report8 Jul 2026
Ugandan farmers fight to halt EACOP
Solicitors Journal

Ugandan farmers fight to halt EACOP

Four Ugandan farmers have launched a groundbreaking legal battle in the UK High Court against EACOP Ltd, the UK-registered operator of the East African Crude...
News8 Jul 2026
Mediation popularity grows amid court pressures
Solicitors Journal

Mediation popularity grows amid court pressures

Family mediation is on the rise as individuals seek effective resolutions for disputes without court intervention
News8 Jul 2026
Sentencing Council seeks opinions on guidelines
Solicitors Journal

Sentencing Council seeks opinions on guidelines

The Sentencing Council has initiated a consultation on proposed guidelines for facilitating and endangering people during sea crossings to the UK
News8 Jul 2026
Upper Tribunal rules Invisalign aligners are not dental prostheses in HMRC v Align Technology
Solicitors Journal

Upper Tribunal rules Invisalign aligners are not dental prostheses in HMRC v Align Technology

Upper Tribunal holds Invisalign clear aligners are standard-rated for VAT, not exempt dental prostheses.
Court Report7 Jul 2026
Court of Appeal upholds foreign law finding in Kerish v Opel commercial agency dispute
Solicitors Journal

Court of Appeal upholds foreign law finding in Kerish v Opel commercial agency dispute

Court of Appeal upholds ruling that Palestinian car dealer was not a commercial agent.
Court Report7 Jul 2026
Commercial Court adjourns fraud set-aside point in Stor RB One v Kanthasamy pending appeal
Solicitors Journal

Commercial Court adjourns fraud set-aside point in Stor RB One v Kanthasamy pending appeal

Commercial Court lets forged guarantee claim proceed to trial while novel set-aside point awaits appeal.
Court Report7 Jul 2026
SJ Interview: Sohail Ali
Solicitors Journal

SJ Interview: Sohail Ali

Sohail Ali is a Disputes partner at DLA Piper, advising clients on complex cross-border litigation and arbitration matters. Alongside his practice, is also is a...
Interview7 Jul 2026
Matters of judgement
Solicitors Journal

Matters of judgement

Foreword1 Jul 2026