Trading with consumers

This subtopic examines commercial law and regulation that impacts trading and contracting with consumers in the UK.

To determine the legal framework applicable to a specific consumer contract, the following two key questions must be considered:

•
what is being sold—ie goods, services and/or digital content
•
where it is being sold—ie on-premises, off-premises or at a distance (eg, online)

In addition, there are restrictions applicable to how consumer contracts are drafted.

Traders must also consider how they sell to avoid unfair trading practices.

For information on law and regulation applicable to trading with consumers in the EU, see: Consumer protection (EU Law)—overview and also Practice Note: Consumer protection—UK/EU comparison.

Key consumer legislation

Prior to contracting or trading with consumers, it is important for traders to be aware of the legislation that governs business-to-consumer (B2C) relationships.

The Practice Note: Key consumer legislation—summary sets out a brief description of the key consumer legislation that businesses dealing with consumers should be aware of.

It considers the core legislation relevant when trading or contracting with consumers and other key legislation relevant to the B2C relationship in the context

To view the latest version of this document and thousands of others like it, sign-in with LexisNexis or register for a free trial.

TAKE A FREE TRIAL

Latest Commercial News

Weekly roundup of HMRC import, export and customs guidance—4 August 2025

Details of updates to HMRC import, export and customs guidance for the period from 29 July to 4 August 2025.

A sign of things to come; the judicial review permission hearing (Siderise v Kensington and Chelsea)

Public Law analysis: Siderise Insulation Ltd have been successful in obtaining permission to bring a judicial review challenge in respect of the decision by the Royal Borough of Kensington & Chelsea to prohibit the use of their products and prohibit contracts with them as a supplier in all projects going forward, a decision that had been taken by the council as a result of the reports issued by the Grenfell Inquiry. The judgment handed down regarding Siderise’s permission application indicates how important the full decision will be, touching on issues concerning the following of policy by the council, the ability of the council to exclude bidders from future procurements under the Public Contract Regulations 2015 and how issues of limitation should be interpr`eted where a judicial review concerns a procurement matter. While procurement law is changing, as new procurements are subject to the Procurement Act 2023, the case will still provide useful guidance for public bodies on how to conduct themselves in matters concerning sensitive policies and commercial providers. Written by Sarah Whittle, legal director at Blake Morgan.

Supreme Court confirms that undisclosed car finance commissions are not unlawful in landmark judgment (Hopcraft and another v Close Brothers Limited; Johnson v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance; Wrench v FirstRand Bank Limited (London Branch) t/a MotoNovo Finance)

The Supreme Court has ruled in three conjoined appeals concerning undisclosed commission payments in car finance deals. In its judgment today (1 August 2025), the Supreme Court rejected claims against lenders based on the tort of bribery and equity, ruling that car dealers arranging finance are not fiduciaries. The judgment provides important clarification on the legal status of dealer-arranged car finance while establishing that particularly high undisclosed commissions may still be challenged under consumer credit legislation. Christopher Adams, barrister at Henderson Chambers, and Kate Urell, barrister at Gough Square Chambers, comment on the implications of this landmark judgment.

Law Commission announces review of Consumer Protection Act 1987

The Law Commission has announced a review of the product liability regime established under the Consumer Protection Act 1987. This initiative aims to assess whether the current legal framework remains effective in addressing harm caused by defective products, particularly in light of technological advancements over the past four decades. The review will examine the regime’s adequacy in managing risks associated with emerging digital technologies and consider potential reforms to ensure it continues to protect consumers while supporting innovation and industry. Stakeholders are invited to contribute their views on the regime’s current challenges and the areas the review should prioritise.