🎆Fireworks Have Arrived Early: The CMA’s Vet Sector Report Under Pressure

As Bonfire Night approaches, one might expect sparks in the sky. But in the veterinary profession, the real fireworks arrived early, in the form of uproar over the CMA’s plan to share unredacted material with selected parties in its veterinary market investigation.

From the CMA’s vantage, the investigation into veterinary services is intended to shine light on structural problems, lack of price transparency, vertical integration, and potential consumer harm. The Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) is empowered under competition law to carry out market investigations, issue Provisional Decision Reports (PDRs), and propose remedies if it finds anti-competitive features.

What is the CMA doing — very briefly

1. Market investigation: The CMA gathers evidence from across the sector (vet businesses, clients, insurers, etc.).

2. It drafts working papers and consults on emerging ideas.

3. It prepares a Provisional Decision Report (PDR): its draft findings and proposed remedies.

4. It allows affected parties to respond (in response hearings) before final decisions.

5. Remedies are refined and then a Final Decision is published.

Normally, to ensure fairness, parties potentially affected can see more detailed information (including unredacted business data) during the consultation phases, under strict confidentiality. That is, they are asked to “mark their own homework,” but under legal guardrails.

The CMA has indicated that some confidential business information in the PDR will be redacted for public release. But it will share an unredacted version with external legal advisers to the large veterinary groups (LVGs), under a so-called “confidentiality ring".

The CMA defends this as standard process: a legal obligation to allow affected parties to review and respond to material that impacts them.

Why vets are uneasy - the profession’s unease

The reaction across independent practices, professional bodies, and clinicians has been intense. Several themes dominate the critique:

• Unequal access / competitive disadvantage
  Only the LVGs (through their external advisers) are being given full access. Independent practices fear this gives the large groups privileged opportunity to shape their responses and potentially influence or game the process.

• Transparency versus privilege
  In a process that is meant to promote transparency, many see the confidentiality ring as fundamentally unfair. Those being investigated are seemingly being entrusted to mark their own homework.

• Threat of vet profiteering criticism
  Whatever the CMA announces, especially remedies around prescribing, margins, or corporate ownership, it will inevitably attract the media spotlight again. And frontline vets are likely to take the brunt of the criticism with accusations of profiteering and caring more about profits than pets.

• Precedent of confidentiality ring failures
  It is worth pointing out that confidentiality rings have stumbled before, for example in telecoms sector investigations, where selective disclosure or protection of data raised legal challenges.

• Professional bodies demanding clarity
  The BVA has publicly expressed concern. It has sought “clarification and explanation” that the arrangements won’t put independent practices at a disadvantage.

The online petition

A Change.org petition titled“Grant access to independent vets to the CMA’s unredacted PDR” has already gathered thousands of signatures. It demands “equal access and fair representation” for independent practices in reviewing the CMA’s provisional findings.

What’s next?

With the PDR publication expected imminently, this is no longer theoretical. The CMA has extended its timetable to allow more time to consider responses, but the announcement is due shortly. Once remedies are published, media and political scrutiny will intensify… and vet practices, will be in the firing line.

Thinking like the CMA

From the CMA’s internal logic:

• It must allow affected parties to see relevant unredacted evidence, so they can fairly respond.

• Confidentiality rings are a well-established tool in complex investigations to balance openness and protection of sensitive data.

• Use of legal advisers (rather than the companies themselves) helps maintain some buffer.

• The public or redacted version preserves consumer transparency while limiting commercial harm.

Yet the optics remain fraught: “fairness,” “level playing field,” and “due process” will all be scrutinised heavily by both the profession and external observers.

The use of confidentiality rings is not always necessary and CMA can choose not to use this tool. It has certainly created sparks in the profession…

​

Igniting your career amid the sparks

Just like fireworks at this time, Vetmatch is about igniting your career. In these turbulent times, when policy, markets and public attention collide, connect with us to ensure you are in your ideal role.

If you would like to explore some options for your future in veterinary practice, whether independent or corporate, explore our jobs board here: Vetmatch Jobs Board.​