23 Jan 2026
Regulators have dismissed claims of a shift in approach, despite enduring fears over the impact of reform on independent care providers.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: PhotoGranary / Adobe Stock
A veterinary organisation has called for the head of the regulator currently investigating the sector to resign, alleging his appointment heralded a shift in its approach.
Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) officials have dismissed the claim, insisting the inquiry’s work remains “objective” and separate from its senior executives.
But the body has also been accused of failing to provide a “sensible” alternative service model as new questions emerge over the future of its own investigation protocols.
Ahead of next Friday’s (30 January) deadline for evidence submissions before final remedy decisions are reached, concerns remain focused largely on the specific impact reforms could have on independent care providers.
The authority has so far rejected warnings that its approach risks forcing some practices out of business altogether.
But in its latest submission to the investigation, the Progressive Veterinary Association (PVA) warned of an “alteration in trajectory” that it suggested had dated from the appointment of former Amazon executive Doug Gurr as the authority’s interim chair a year ago.
It argued the inquiry’s current approach risked both accelerating corporatisation and increasing prices for pet owners and held Mr Gurr “ultimately” responsible for what it called “severe failures”.
The paper added: “We respectfully suggest that he considers his position.” A senior association official later confirmed they believed Mr Gurr should go.
A CMA spokesperson said it “strongly disagrees” with the comments and insisted Mr Gurr was not part of the investigation process.
It also dismissed concerns over its increased use of the term “large veterinary groups” (LVGs) instead of the word “corporate”, claiming it was normal for language to “evolve” during an investigation.
But the PVA described the LVG term, which appears more than 650 times in full or abbreviated form in the provisional remedies paper compared to just six references to large corporate groups, as a “euphemism”.
It added that its economic advisors had recommended calling for a rethink of the risk that the proposed remedies could “result in a patent absurdity, whereby an intervention by a competition authority actually risks resulting in less competition”.
In a separate document, the Federation of Independent Veterinary Practices (FIVP) renewed its attack on the inquiry’s current proposals, warning they would “disproportionately penalise small, independent practices to the benefit of large corporates”.
It also echoed the PVA’s concern over care costs and claimed the measures would threaten the delivery of “community-focused service”.
It said: “The CMA is proposing the disassembly of a reliable, well-tested system without recommendations for a sensible replacement.
“If the CMA’s remedies go ahead, millions of pet owners could see the monopolisation of veterinary care.
“Pet owners will see their vet bills rise, their choice become limited and, ultimately, animal welfare is put at greater risk.”
The CMA said: “We are in the final stages of considering extensive feedback and evidence from all stakeholders ahead of making our final decision.
“This decision will be made by the independent expert Inquiry Group, based on an objective assessment of the evidence.”
But the investigation process itself may now come under further scrutiny following the launch of a new consultation on how UK competition rules are enforced.
The Government said it was seeking to improve the “pace, predictability, proportionality and process of the UK’s competition regime”.
But while it insisted it wanted to maintain the CMA’s independence, competition law expert David Reader said plans to move away from the current panel-based inquiry model indicated a “willingness to fundamentally change” how the authority applies the legislation.
He said: “It is clear that UK merger control is heading in a direction where there is no longer a surefire guarantee that the CMA will be able to intervene and offer a safeguard to local concentration.”
