Ryanair has started judicial review proceedings challenging information notices issued by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) in the consumer enforcement case the CMA opened against Ryanair earlier this year. This is one of the first significant tests of the CMA's direct consumer enforcement powers under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, which came into force in April 2025.
The CMA is investigating Ryanair's use of, and reliance on, a potentially unfair contract term under which a consumer travelling with a child must pay a mandatory fee to sit next to that child. It is also looking at the way the fee is presented on Ryanair's website, including whether it is incorporated into the total price shown to the consumer at the start of the purchasing process. Since the CMA began its investigation, Ryanair has said that it will stop charging the mandatory fee and the UK government has announced that airlines will not be allowed to charge adults to sit with their children anyway. The CMA's investigation nonetheless continues.
Ryanair heads to court
In early August 2026, Ryanair applied to the Administrative Court for permission to judicially review the legality of information notices sent to it by the CMA.
On 6 August 2026, Ryanair applied for interim relief. It asked to be excused from complying with parts of the notices and for an order preventing the CMA from taking enforcement action, including the imposition of fixed or daily penalties for non-compliance, until the claim was decided. The Administrative Court refused that application on 10 August 2026. In short, the information notices still stand, and the CMA remains free to penalise non-compliance while the challenge plays out.
But it's not just Ryanair!
In a related case raising some of the same arguments, two claimants, anonymised HTY and HTN, have obtained an anonymity order. The court found that, at this stage, the claimants have a reasonable expectation of confidentiality and would be likely to suffer significant reputational damage if they were publicly identified. In the circumstances, a departure from the general principle of open justice was justified. Because this case also raised overlapping issues with the Ryanair case, the court indicated that they should be heard together.
Next stop: November
On the substantive issues, a "rolled-up" hearing is listed for 24 to 26 November 2026. The Court will first decide whether Ryanair should receive permission to proceed with its judicial review claim. If permission is granted, it will then determine the substantive claim at the same hearing. The overlapping issues in the HTY and HTN case will be heard at the same time.
Why this matters beyond aviation
The proceedings may provide important guidance on the scope and operation of the CMA's information-gathering powers in consumer protection investigations. More immediately, they highlight the difficult position of a business that wishes to contest an information notice but remains exposed to potential sanctions for non-compliance while that challenge is determined.
Practical tips if you object to an information notice
- Act fast. Check the notice's scope, deadline and legal basis as soon as it arrives.
- Keep everything. Identify and preserve potentially responsive documents and data.
- Engage early and in writing. Raise objections with the case team at the outset.
- Comply while you contest. A challenge doesn't suspend your obligation to respond, unless the court orders it. Ryanair's experience shows that such an order is hard to obtain.
- Choose your route. Concerns about fairness or case handling can go to the CMA's Procedural Officer (see guidance on raising procedural issues), or through correspondence with the case team. Where necessary, you can bring urgent court action.
- Assess penalty exposure. Late or incomplete responses can attract substantial fixed or daily penalties.
Final approach
These cases are part of a wider trend of regulators facing challenges to their information-gathering and enforcement powers, their approach to transparency and how they put new regimes into practice. Similar challenges have been brought against the CMA over a fine it imposed for failing to comply with an information notice and against Ofcom over the scope of its information-gathering powers under the Online Safety Act 2023. The November hearing should give a clear signal of how the courts will approach such issues.
