Talk:Competition and Markets Authority

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Cases[edit]

I have added a CMA assessment published today. Would such additions be a good idea or are they unnecessary? The article on the Office of Fair Trading includes a similar section. Pro: it would show what the CMA does. Con: it may turn out to be difficult to maintain. Apuldram (talk) 23:21, 27 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Since I posed that question the CMA has answered it for me by publishing their full list of cases, which is too long for inclusion in the article, so I have removed the section Cases from the article. Apuldram (talk) 10:46, 5 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ongoing cases[edit]

I have reverted the inclusion of the Eurotunnel/Sea France merger inquiry in the article. It is only one of over 600 currently ongoing cases. Many of the cases have been subject to appeal, several have international implications, all represent dispute with the CMA and nearly all involve a conflict of interest of one kind or another. There is no special justification for singling out this case for inclusion in the article. A link to the full list of cases is given in the article. Apuldram (talk) 12:10, 3 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

How many cases have been several times cancelled by appeal court AND having international implications AND having strikes (Calais Port is blocked now for 10 days) AND international traffic disrupted AND diplomatic issues AND political enquiries (Jacques Gounon is currently listened at French parliament) AND is against decision taken by another competition authority AND pointed out conflict of interest of CMA AND subject to controversy because who can say competition is better with 2 competitors than with 3 ? Cite them, the justification is CONTROVERSY, Wikipedia is guided by neutrality of point of view, which means you don't talk about an institution as it would like to. You linked to CMA web site, I visited it a few days ago but on the page about SeaFrance, they are lots of stuff but don't event say that appeal court cancelled all their decision, they just say they would go to supreme court and there is no link to decisions of appeal court. Very neutral... Lpele (talk) 11:40, 9 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Own goal[edit]

The CMA, in About us, describes its aims as “to work to promote competition for the benefit of consumers, both within and outside the UK” and “to make markets work well for consumers, businesses and the economy.” In one CMA case it appears to have achieved the opposite of that.
On 20 May 2014, the CMA ruled that the MyFerryLink SCOP (‘’société coopérative et participative’’) could no longer operate ferry services from Dover. On 15 May 2015 the Court of Appeal overturned the CMA ruling, on the grounds of ‘’fair competition’’. Then the CMA announced its intention to lodge an appeal to the UK Supreme Court. This drove Eurotunnel, who owned the ferry vessels leased to the SCOP, to lease them instead to a competitor, DFDS. The outcomes were reduction in competition, a loss of service to consumers, the closure of the MyFerryLink business and consequent unemployment.

The CMA publishes a list of its cases, including this case. It itemises the stages in its investigation, but does not give an explanation or reasons for its actions. The title of the investigation "Eurotunnel / SeaFrance merger inquiry" doesn’t help – SeaFrance was liquidated in 2012. Does purchasing some of the assets of a dead company constitute a merger? At first sight the case appears to have been very counterproductive. Does any editor know of a source that puts the CMA point of view? Apuldram (talk) 12:26, 21 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

CMA Responsibilities and Goals[edit]

In addition to making slight changes to the bullet points under Responsibilities to match the text found on the CMA's page, it would be useful to include the long term strategic goals that the CMA wishes to achieve. This can also be found on GOV.UK — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.161.20 (talk) 16:33, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CMA Board and Senior Executive team[edit]

The list of board members and senior executive team are currently outdated and need changing. Notably, the new chair of the CMA appointed earlier this year is Andrew Tyrie. The correct list of board members can be found on the CMA's site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.12.161.20 (talk) 16:45, 12 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Reverts[edit]

Can other editors please tell me which of my edits they do not understand? I find it pretty weird that my edits get reverted with no ([1], [2]) or little ([3]) explanation. FYI not all content removal has to be reverted. Well, I'm sure the article is better off with a paragraph sourced to a tweet which does not even mention the CMA and healthcare regulation minutiae (orders are not uncommon and there is no reason to include this in particular in detail). 163.1.150.134 (talk) 16:10, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ping User:BellconGrass, User:DoebLoggs, User:LuK3. 163.1.150.134 (talk) 16:17, 16 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:M.Bitton is also invited to join this very one-sided discussion. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 14:22, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

When you delete sourced content without providing a valid reason, your edit will be reverted (that's how Wikipedia works). There's nothing here that justifies the content removal. M.Bitton (talk) 14:29, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

User:M.Bitton I have explained above and in my edit summaries why I made the removals. I referenced the talk page in my latest removal that you undid. Which part do I have to explain? That you are reintroducing unsourced content? The section on Illumina is sourced to a tweet by a random person which does not even mention the CMA. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 14:33, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted this edit, which references the talk page, yet there is nothing here that justifies or even explains why you deleted the sourced content. M.Bitton (talk) 14:36, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I'm sure the article is better off with a paragraph sourced to a tweet which does not even mention the CMA and healthcare regulation minutiae (orders are not uncommon and there is no reason to include this in particular in detail). I was hoping that this was clear enough, but I can try again: The first section is completely unsourced, while the second part is disproportionate as the CMA passes orders all the time; there is no reason to include it in such detail. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 14:39, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a tweet. M.Bitton (talk) 14:43, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I can see how the sentence introduced some ambiguity. The first part (Illumina) is sourced to a tweet. The second part (healthcare) is sourced, but undue. To use brackets from symbolic logic, it should be Well, I'm sure the article is better off with a [paragraph sourced to a tweet which does not even mention the CMA] and [healthcare regulation minutiae]. 192.76.8.70 (talk) 14:46, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I only commented here to explain the revert (I have no intention on getting involved in this content dispute). Since the content removal has been reverted multiple times and to avoid getting blocked for edit warring, I suggest you provide a thorough explanation of why that particular content should be removed and see what the others have to say. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 14:52, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with M.Bitton and I do not want to get involved with this dispute. I simply reverted an edit that did not include an accurate edit summary that explained why the information was deleted. -- LuK3 (Talk) 18:48, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Right, I have now provided my (hopefully comprehensible) reasoning above. As no one has any substantive argument against it I will reinstate my version. It seems that the initial revert by WP:LTA/INTSF has sparked a chain of procedural reverts. Shame what a massive waste of time this was. Cheers, 192.76.8.70 (talk) 19:06, 17 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

what the French govt said about the MyFerryLink case[edit]

The French government justified the decision to ban one out of three ferry operators with fair-trade concerns

it did? It looks to me as though the British government thought the decision was justified and the French disagreed. Marnanel (talk) 15:13, 26 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Appeals process[edit]

Article needs to be updated with an appeals section and what the process is 47.146.175.150 (talk) 13:35, 28 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]