Part 1: Digital Markets Chapter 4: Pro-Competition Interventions Section 51: Pro-competition orders
This section provides for the remedies possible as part of a pro-competition order, including an order implemented on a trial basis. The CMA must state in the pro-competition order the date by which it must be reviewed, and the CMA is under a duty to publish a pro-competition order provided to the relevant designated undertaking, subject to necessary redactions for confidentiality reasons.
	Subsections (1) provides that a pro-competition order following a PCI investigation, may implement the same remedies, including directions, that are provided for in Section 161 and Schedule 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 following a market investigation reference. Schedule 8 of the Enterprise Act 2002 sets out a non-exhaustive list of structural and behavioural remedies that the CMA may implement as an order. These include:
General restrictions on conduct e.g. a prohibition on combining user data collected from different activities that the undertaking carries out;
General obligations to be performed e.g. a requirement to make a service interoperable with a competitor’s;
Acquisitions and divisions e.g. a requirement to divest an aspect of the business;
Supply and publication of information e.g. a requirement to supply a competitor with user data.
	Subsection (1), as a consequence of sections 161 and 164 of the Enterprise Act 2002, allows the CMA to also be able to issue directions of the kind described in section 87 of the Enterprise Act 2002 in respect to compliance with pro-competition orders.
	Subsection (2) makes necessary modifications to the wording of Schedule 8 to the Enterprise Act 2002 to achieve this.
	Subsection (3) and (4) outline that the pro-competition order may require a designated undertaking to trial a remedy or remedies with subsets of, or all of, the designated undertaking’s users following a PCI investigation, if it would help the CMA build evidence on an effective PCI remedy made on a non-trial basis. The CMA can choose to trial different remedies at the same time, or trial different versions of the same remedy in order to determine the effective remedy design. By their nature trials will be time limited.
Example (4): A trial pro-competition order
The CMA may conclude that, due to a competition concern, the designated undertaking’s designated mobile operating system (OS) should show users a choice screen containing different search engine providers. The CMA may order the undertaking to run a trial of different choice screen layouts in order to determine which design is most effective at boosting competition. It could, for example, order the undertaking to run a 3-month trial, with 4 different choice screen layouts for 1% of its users. At the end of the 3-month trial, the CMA would analyse the results and determine the choice screen design that particularly encourages switching. The CMA would therefore vary the PCI trial order to become a long-term pro-competition order, requiring the SMS undertaking to show all UK users that particular choice screen layout.
	Subsection (5) stipulates with reference to section 55(3) that the CMA must state in the pro-competition order a date by which it will carry out a review of that order. It must complete a review of the pro-competition order by this date and conclude whether the order should continue unchanged, be replaced (by way of section 52), or be revoked.