The UK Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) published today its provisional findings in its probe of veterinary services for pets. Attached are (i) the CMA’s press release; (ii) a summary of the provisional decision; and (iii) a notice of provisional findings. The full text of the provisional decision is still to be published. According to the CMA, this will happen “shortly”.

The CMA has provisionally found “significant and widespread problems” in the market for veterinary services for household pets compared to a situation in which the market would be functioning properly.

The CMA’s findings are of course dictated by the specific business and regulatory environment in the UK. Still, you may be interested to learn of the following key concerns which the CMA believes should be addressed.

• Lack of information for pet owners: the CMA finds that vets and veterinary businesses are not providing pet owners with the information they need, in a timely manner, to enable them to choose between different veterinary practices, treatment options or, in the case of medicines, whether to use alternative retailers such as online pharmacies;
• Barriers in market: the CMA considers that there are sometimes barriers which prevent pet owners from acting on information. By way of illustration, it refers to high prescription fees, delays in obtaining a written prescription and uncertainty regarding the quality of medicines from online pharmacies or timeliness of delivery;
• Inadequate regulatory framework: the CMA finds that the system of regulation of vets is “outdated and wholly unfit for purpose”. The chief reason is that it applies only to veterinary professionals and not to the businesses in which these professionals work (over 60% of which are owned by six large veterinary groups – CVS, IVC, Linnaeus, Medivet, Pets at Home and VetPartners).

Given the extent of its provisional concerns, the CMA proposes a wide-ranging set of remedies to address the issues identified. Once fully implemented, these remedies, which require action by (i) the CMA; (ii) the UK’s Royal College of Veterinary Surgeons (which acts as sector regulator; RCVS); and (iii) the UK government, would amount to “a fundamental reset of the relationship between veterinary businesses and pet owners”.

The proposed remedies include the following:

• To make it easier for pet owners to choose a veterinary practice that meets their needs, veterinary businessess would be required to (i) clearly disclose that they are part of a large group (if applicable); (ii) publish comprehensive price lists; and (iii) make sure that their policies and processes allow vets to act in the best interests of pets and pet owners. Additionaly, RCVS would be required to publish pricing data on its “Find a Vet” website, drawing on the price lists to be published by veterinary businesses, and make those data available to third party websites and apps;
• To make it easier for pet owners to purchase cheaper veterinary medicines online, veterinary businessess would be required to (i) inform pet owners about the savings they can make by buying medicines online; (ii) provide owners of pets with an on-going need for medication automatically with a written prescription to enable them to buy the medicine online; (iii) tell pet owners that they may be able to buy products more cheaply from a competitor; and (iv) charge not more than £16 for a written prescription;
• To make it easier for pet owners to consider different treatment options and service providers, veterinary businesses would be required to provide pet owners with (i) clear price information in writing, including for any aftercare, for treatments over £500; and (ii) an itemised bill.

The provisional conclusions of the CMA are open to a consultation process which closes on 12 November 2025. The CMA indicated that it would publish its final decision by March 2026. Next, the proposed reforms will be implemented through a legally binding CMA order.

The veterinary services sector is subject to scrutiny in a range of EU Member States, including the Netherlands and Sweden. It will be interesting to see whether the findings of the Dutch and Swedish competition authorities are in line with these of the CMA, notwithstanding regulatory divergences