12 Jan 2026
Competition and Markets Authority warned it may not have power to implement its price list proposals on medicines without wider regulatory approval.
Allister Webb
Job Title
Image: PhotoGranary / Adobe Stock
Elements of the current ideas for reforming veterinary services may themselves be unlawful if they are implemented in their present form, a sector communications firm has claimed.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has been warned it may not have the power to implement its price list proposals on medicines without wider regulatory approval.
But it has insisted it will not impose measures on the sector that conflict with the law as it stands.
The issue has emerged in the past few weeks for stakeholders to make representations to the CMA inquiry group before it delivers its final remedy decisions.
Communications platform Digital Practice has already invited businesses to share data with them to help facilitate the development of a digital plug-in, which is intended to help them meet the authority’s requirements.
However, it has also raised legal concerns around the inquiry’s proposal for preferred price lists on parasiticides that are principally stocked and recommended within veterinary businesses’ first opinion practices.
The investigation’s provisional remedies paper, published in October, argued such price lists – along with prominent linking to what it described as “a list of approved online pharmacies” – would allow pet owners to compare products when a recommendation is made.
It also suggested that requiring practices to provide a full medicines price list would impose a “much greater” burden on them and have only limited relevance to most clients.
But Digital Practice founder and head of compliance and veterinary content David Harris argued that while price listing was not considered illegal advertising under the current regulatory approach to POM-V products, that only applies when every product in a category is listed equally.
He said: “As soon as you pick and choose to list the prices of some but not others, this is illegal.
“While a change in interpretation is potentially possible, this is not something the CMA can impose by fiat [by order].”
The group has also expressed concerns about the inquiry’s use of the term pharmacy, which it believes could also expose veterinary sector organisations to potential legal action for inappropriate usage if pursued further.
With its final decisions due to be published in either February or March, the CMA said it was currently considering what it described as the “extensive feedback” on its provisional remedy proposals.
Interested parties have until 30 January to make submissions before those decisions are made.
Although it refused to be drawn on the specific concerns raised by Digital Practice, the CMA has also insisted it would not impose a change that “conflicts” with existing legislation.
But other veterinary stakeholders have suggested a formal legal opinion would need to be sought if the present recommendation stands.
Digital Practice acknowledged views on the subject are mixed but argued a change of the kind currently envisaged could only be introduced with the support of the VMD.
The directorate declined to comment on that issue but said it supported the CMA’s “aim that there is suitable competition to allow animal owners to find a vet practice that best suits their needs”.
