Good afternoon. I extend my gratitude to the Financial Times, the News Media Association, and Reset for hosting this event, and to Roa for the insightful report, alongside my colleagues at the Institute for Public Policy Research.
A Remarkable Achievement on the World Stage
Let me commence by highlighting a notable achievement for Britain on the global stage in 2026. This is not, as you might expect, the publisher conduct requirement introduced by the CMA in early June, which may be at the forefront of your minds.
Instead, I am referring to British middle-distance runner Josh Kerr, who, in July, shattered the world record for the mile—a record that had remained unbroken since the end of the last millennium. He completed the distance in an astonishing 3 minutes and 42 seconds.
You may wonder what the relevance of this is. It is not merely about the speed at which he ran (although I, as a runner, can attest that it seems superhuman!). Rather, it lies in the fact that he publicly declared his intentions months in advance: specifying which record he aimed to break, on what date, and during which event. He then maintained a singular focus on this goal and, under the pressure of his own announcement, succeeded in delivering an extraordinary performance.
Lessons from Athletic Determination
The role of the CMA is not to generate hype akin to that of professional athletes. Nonetheless, as I will elucidate, there are parallels in our implementation of the digital markets competition regime and the broader work of the CMA. We have previously articulated our objectives through various public statements, and we are now diligently executing the plans we laid out.
While we may not operate at superhuman speed, we have exerted considerable effort to achieve impactful outcomes as swiftly as possible.
Insights from the IPPR Report
Let us delve into the IPPR’s recent report titled ‘Bottleneck Britain’. Taking a step back, it is essential to acknowledge the critical importance of competition. I have often felt that competition receives less attention—and less nuanced attention—than it warrants, particularly when we consider the extensive negative consequences of ineffective competition, as well as the potential advantages of markets that genuinely serve the people of the UK.
Frequently, discussions about competition devolve into simplistic narratives, such as ‘Company X and Company Y wish to merge, while Authority Z aims to intervene,’ or ‘Company A is suing Company B’. This reductionist view is understandable; after all, a dramatic disagreement or legal battle is far easier to report than a complex structural analysis of the costs of market concentration or a well-conceived, forward-looking intervention aimed at maintaining market contestability.
In this context, reports like ‘Bottleneck Britain’ are invaluable. To say the least, the landscape of technology, the UK economy, and the daily lives of individuals is complex and multifaceted. A piece of research that draws on a variety of sources, including original polling, and seeks to illuminate the issues arising from unchecked market power in digital markets, as well as the potential benefits of reshaping those markets for improved outcomes, represents a significantly more sophisticated approach to these matters.
Concerns Over Market Power
One polling aspect that particularly struck me is that, despite the well-documented challenges related to access to finance and talent, these concerns were overshadowed by companies’ apprehensions regarding the market power of large digital platforms. This issue is increasingly perceived not merely as an economic one but as a matter of sovereignty as well.
While I appreciate the intent and much of the analysis presented in the report, it may not surprise you that I do not concur with all of its conclusions. Rather than dissecting each point, I will outline the approach we have adopted, what we have accomplished thus far, and how, much like Josh Kerr, we have adhered to the plan we initially articulated.
Commitment to Delivering Results
I will begin by addressing the government’s strategic guidance to the CMA. We have been explicit about the significance of this steer in our latest CMA strategy. The government is tasked with establishing the overarching economic policy environment within which the CMA operates. It is the government’s responsibility to delineate the broader policy objectives that should inform the CMA, without compromising its operational independence.
A careful reading of the steer reveals important elements—for instance, the emphasis on being ‘swift, predictable, independent, and proportionate’ in our operations, or the call to employ the digital regime ‘independently, flexibly, proportionately, and collaboratively’.
I believe it is difficult to argue that one would expect a competition authority to act in any other manner. Furthermore, I suspect there are few individuals in this room who do not support the aim of ‘unlocking opportunities for growth across the UK digital economy and the wider economy’—once again, I quote the steer.
Evaluating Our Approach
The IPPR report suggests a new strategic steer, but that is a matter for the government. You may have noted the Secretary of State’s comments in the Times last week regarding this issue. However, the government has broadly reiterated its support for the CMA to utilise all available tools robustly to enhance competition and benefit consumers, businesses, and the UK economy. We appreciate this backing.
Now, how have we approached the regime? What did we promise, and have we followed through? The primary focus has always been on impact. Importantly, this impact must translate into genuine, positive outcomes for individuals across the UK.
We refer to every individual—man, woman, and child in the country. We include employees of the countless UK companies reliant on major tech firms—be they content providers, app developers, web developers, cloud customers, software clients, advertisers, or partners.
We also consider individuals as shareholders of those companies, whether directly or through their pensions. And ultimately, we see individuals as consumers, because all of us ultimately bear the cost of every digital product or service in some form.
Ensuring Fair Competition in Digital Markets
Consumers fund digital advertising, even if they are unaware of it when conducting online searches. They pay for app store commissions, enterprise software, and cloud services—even if these costs are often obscured by the purchasing process. This focus on delivering impact for individuals is central to all our current initiatives.
By enforcing the publisher conduct requirement, we aim to ensure that publishers—an inclusive term that encompasses a broad range of businesses, not just those present here—engage in fair negotiations with Google. This, in turn, supports ongoing investments in high-quality content and provides clarity to users encountering their content via Google search.
In the mobile sector, relevant companies include developers interested in equitable app distribution and fintechs aiming to provide innovative services through tap-to-pay technology via Near Field Communication (NFC) chips. In this context, ‘people’ encompasses all smartphone users—those seeking a diverse array of innovative services from various providers, which represents the vast majority of adults in the country.
The Importance of Cloud Services
Our investigation into Microsoft’s business software ecosystem is at a different juncture, but it similarly concerns the interests of a multitude of UK companies and public sector organisations, as well as the taxpayer who ultimately finances all digital services procured by the government.
As business software increasingly integrates AI, we are committed to ensuring effective competition. We want to guarantee that customers can access the best tools available in the market and can mix and match AI services from a variety of competing suppliers. This will enable us all to benefit from rapid innovation driven by challengers in this sector.
Cloud services also constitute a crucial infrastructure that supports the digital products and tools we utilise daily—ranging from streaming services to online shopping, public services, banking, and payment systems. While issues like multi-cloud strategies or egress fees may appear technical or obscure, they significantly impact billions of pounds in expenditure by both private and public sector organisations across the UK, making them vital considerations.
Addressing Strategic Dependencies
As critical services and infrastructure, cloud computing—and increasingly, AI-enabled business software—illustrates where competition and sovereignty intersect. Elevated concentration and lock-in in these areas create strategic dependencies that carry economic repercussions for businesses and the public sector alike.
Effective competition can assist the UK in managing these dependencies by broadening customer choice, sustaining a diverse supplier base, and applying pressure on prices. This, in turn, strengthens resilience and diminishes the risks associated with excessive dependence on a limited number of providers.
This is an area where we have been advising the government as part of our broader public procurement efforts—so do stay tuned for further updates in Parliament tomorrow.
Utilising Flexibility for Better Outcomes
Moving beyond impact, we have consistently underscored the advantages of flexibility in our pursuit of effective outcomes. Even in the measures we have instituted thus far, we have employed a variety of approaches, taking full advantage of the flexibility inherent in the UK framework. Formal strategic market status (SMS) findings, conduct requirements, and commitments are all facets of our toolkit, and we unapologetically employ them strategically to achieve meaningful impact.
At present, we have three formal conduct requirements in place concerning Google’s search operations. We are consulting on parallel conduct requirements