CompareTheMarket fined £17.9m over cost of home insurance premiums
Executive at regulator describes decision as ‘robust and correct’
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Price comparison site CompareTheMarket has been hit with a £17.9 million fine after the competition regulator found that it kept home insurance premiums artificially high for two years.
The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) said that clauses in the firm’s contracts prevented insurers from offering bigger discounts on competitors’ websites between December 2015 and December 2017.
More than two years after it said CompareTheMarket could have breached the law, the CMA found that the price comparison site’s actions had stifled competition, meaning that customers likely paid higher premiums than they otherwise would have.
Responding to the decision, the provider, which is part of the BGL Group, expressed its disappointment, saying it disagrees with the regulator’s conclusions.
A company spokesperson said: "CompareTheMarket.com is disappointed with the CMA's decision and does not recognise its analysis of the home insurance market.
"We fundamentally disagree with the conclusions the CMA has drawn and will be carefully examining the detailed rationale behind the decision and considering all of our options.”
However, Michael Grenfell, the CMA’s executive director for enforcement, insisted that the watchdog’s decision was “robust and correct”.
Speaking on BBC Radio 4’s Today programme, Mr Grenfell said: "We have spent three years on this investigation, we have listened to all the arguments that they and others have made and to the evidence.
"As a result of taking all their points and other people's points on board and reflecting on it very carefully, we've issued a carefully reasoned decision. Obviously it's open to them to challenge, but we think it's the robust and correct decision."
Earlier, the executive director had said that the CMA was dedicated to ensuring fair competition and the benefits it brought for customers.
"Digital markets can yield great benefits for competition, and therefore for consumers. We are determined to secure those benefits, and to ensure that competition is not illegitimately restricted."
Additional reporting by PA
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments