The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) has opened a Trainline drip pricing probe alongside formal investigations into Virgin Atlantic and Red Driving School, published on 19 August 2026, after initial warnings to all three firms failed to resolve concerns about how mandatory fees were presented to customers.
The regulator is deploying powers introduced under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which allow it to rule directly on whether consumer law has been broken, rather than seeking a court order. If it finds an infringement, it can fine companies up to 10% of global turnover and compel them to pay compensation to affected customers.
What the CMA says each firm is doing wrong
The details of each investigation matter, because the fee structures differ considerably. For Trainline, the CMA has identified transaction fees ranging from £0.59 to £2.79 for train bookings and a flat £1.50 booking fee for coach tickets, with the concern being that these charges appeared during the booking journey rather than in the headline price.
Virgin Atlantic faces questions over whether mandatory resort fees and local taxes, which the CMA says can run to hundreds of pounds on package holidays, were included in prices shown at the outset. Red Driving School is under scrutiny over a mandatory booking fee and digital fee that together total £7 or more per lesson booking.
‘The first price customers see should be the price they pay,’ said Emma Cochrane, the CMA’s executive director for consumer protection. ‘Clear pricing helps people compare offers confidently and choose the option that works best for them. Unexpected mandatory charges make this much harder, which is why the CMA initially put these firms on notice over concerns about their pricing practices and is now opening formal investigations.’
Trainline is the only listed company among the three. Its shares fell by as much as 14% in early trading on Wednesday. The company said it had ‘proactively engaged with the CMA over several months’ and was ‘taking steps to enhance the presentation of certain fees.’ Virgin Atlantic said mandatory fees were ‘indicated at multiple stages’ during booking and that it would cooperate with the regulator.
The Trainline drip pricing probe sits inside a much larger enforcement push
This round of investigations is not the CMA’s first use of its new powers. The regulator had already targeted StubHub, viagogo, AA Driving School, BSM Driving School, Gold’s Gym, Wayfair, Appliances Direct, and Marks Electrical in an earlier wave, accompanied by warning letters to 100 businesses across 14 sectors.
The results of that earlier wave are instructive for any company now receiving a formal investigation notice. According to Stephenson Harwood’s analysis of the CMA’s first-year enforcement record, the regulator completed 14 investigations, issued 157 advisory and warning letters, and sent 46 information notices. Total financial penalties across all cases exceeded £4.7 million, with more than £1.95 million ordered in consumer refunds.
The AA case is the most directly relevant precedent for Red Driving School in particular. The AA and BSM were fined a combined £4.2 million after advertising driving lesson prices that were not reflective of what customers actually paid: additional unavoidable charges were introduced mid-booking, after customers had entered personal details and selected lesson slots, meaning the advertised price was never genuinely attainable. According to A&O Shearman’s case note, more than 80,000 customers were ordered to be refunded.
The StubHub outcome is worth unpicking too. The headline figure of nearly £1.5 million in refunds and penalties was the aggregate, but the constituent parts tell a slightly different story. According to Lewis Silkin’s breakdown, StubHub’s financial penalty was approximately £900,000, reduced 40% from an initial assessment of around £1.5 million because the company admitted the infringement and agreed to early settlement. Refunds of more than £590,000 went to over 50,000 customers.
The implication for the three companies now under investigation is clear enough. Early cooperation and settlement, as the StubHub case demonstrated, can materially reduce the penalty. But the CMA’s enforcement record suggests it is no longer content to accept commitments from firms without following through to a formal finding.
For Trainline investors, the more pressing question is whether the booking-fee presentation issue is structural or cosmetic. If it is the latter, a revised checkout flow could close the matter relatively quickly. If the CMA decides the practice was systemic and the firm knew it, the 10% global turnover ceiling becomes a very different conversation.
