www.cma.gov.uk

                                                                   

Platform URL: https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/competition-and-markets-authority

The COCOO-CMA Doctrine: A Strategic Model for UK Regulatory Warfare

This doctrine establishes the protocol for interrogating the Competition and Markets Authority’s (CMA) official web presence. This is not a government information site; it is the central nervous system of UK competition and consumer protection enforcement. We will weaponize this platform to monitor every move the CMA makes, dissect their decisions, find the procedural and legal weaknesses in their cases, and generate the evidence needed to launch our most powerful strategic plays, including Challenge Discretion, COCON (complaints), MATOIPO analysis, and FOC DAM (Find Other Claimants) campaigns.

1. Core Principles of Interrogation

Our use of the CMA’s platform is governed by the most aggressive principles of the COCOO framework. We are not just reading their reports; we are reverse-engineering their strategy to defeat them or co-opt them.

  • The Ultimate Challenge Discretion Target: The CMA is the UK’s primary competition regulator. Every decision they make, every market they investigate, and every guidance document they publish is a potential target for our Challenge Discretion doctrine. We will use their own words and data against them.
  • The Enforcement Gap as a Weapon: The mind maps explicitly identify the need to find “Enforcement Gaps”.1 The CMA’s published “prioritisation principles” are our primary tool for this.1 By finding a market failure that meets their criteria for intervention but which they are ignoring, we can build a powerful, evidence-based complaint (COCON) that forces them to act or risk judicial review.1
  • MATOIPO Intelligence Hub: The CMA’s case register is a real-time feed of all significant UK mergers and acquisitions.1 We will monitor this not just to see which deals are happening, but to analyze the remedies (block/clear/remedies/unds), identify the “flawed theory of harm” in their reasoning, and find opportunities to intervene on behalf of third parties.1
  • The FOC DAM Catalyst: A CMA infringement decision (e.g., finding a cartel) or a market investigation report that identifies widespread consumer harm is a goldmine. It provides an official, government-stamped declaration that a large class of victims exists. This is the ultimate catalyst for a FOC DAM campaign, providing the evidence and legitimacy needed to launch a mass damages claim.1

2. Weaponizing the Platform’s Arsenal: Capabilities and Search Rules

Mastery of the CMA’s section of the GOV.UK website is essential. The search and filtering capabilities, while part of the broader GOV.UK system, can be targeted with precision.

  • Official Search Rules & Functionality: The CMA’s content is hosted on GOV.UK, so the search functionality is governed by that platform’s rules. We will use these rules to our advantage.
Operator/Syntax Function & Strategic Importance Example of COCOO Use
" " Phrase Search: Finds the exact sequence of words. Essential for searching for specific legal concepts or case names. "statement of objections" or "invitation to comment"
AND / + AND Operator: Finds documents containing all specified terms. Used to combine concepts. merger AND remedies AND divestment
**OR / ` `** OR Operator: Finds documents containing either or both terms. Used for searching related terms.
NOT / - NOT Operator: Excludes documents containing a specific term. Crucial for filtering out irrelevant noise. "market study" -groceries
  • Key Platform Features & Filters:
    • Main Search Bar: The primary tool for keyword searches across all CMA content.
    • Filter by Content type: This is a critical filter. We can isolate specific document types, such as Guidance, Research and statistics, Policy papers and consultations, and Decisions.
    • Filter by Topic: Allows us to focus on broad areas like Competition or Consumer protection.
    • Filter by Organisation: The most important filter. We will always set this to “Competition and Markets Authority” to ensure we are only interrogating their publications.
    • CMA Cases Register: The dedicated section for all CMA cases. It has its own powerful filtering system:
      • Case state: Filter by Open or Closed.
      • Case type: Filter by Mergers, Competition Act 1998, Consumer enforcement, Markets, Regulatory appeals, etc.
      • Market sector: Filter by specific industries (e.g., Digital, Financial services, Healthcare and medical equipment).
      • Opened date: Filter by a specific date range to track recent activity.

3. Strategic Interrogation: The Questions We Ask

We interrogate the CMA’s platform to find the evidence that will build our cases and the flaws that will break theirs.

  • For Challenge Discretion & The Enforcement Gap:

    • “What are the CMA’s official ‘prioritisation principles’? Search for guidance AND prioritisation. Does the rampant consumer harm in the [e.g., online ticketing] market meet these principles, and if so, why has the CMA failed to launch a market study?”
    • “Find the CMA’s ‘Annual Plan’. Does their stated focus for the year align with their actual enforcement actions as seen in their open case list? Any discrepancy is an ‘Enforcement Gap’.”

  • For MATOIPO & StealthConsolid Analysis:

    • “Show me all Open Merger cases in the Digital sector that are currently in Phase 2. What are the specific ‘theories of harm’ being investigated?”
    • “In the closed merger case of [e.g., Microsoft/Activision], what were the exact structural and behavioral remedies accepted by the CMA? This provides a blueprint for future deals.”
    • “Has the CMA ever conducted a Market study into a highly segmented market like [e.g., private dental services or funeral directors]? Their findings could contain evidence of a StealthConsolid operation.”

  • For FOC DAM & COCON Origination:

    • “Find all Competition Act 1998 infringement decisions from the last 3 years where a fine was issued for price-fixing. Who were the companies involved (e.g., Advanz Pharma)? The customers of these companies are our target list for a FOC DAM action.”
    • “In the Online Choice Architecture investigation, which companies were found to be using deceptive online practices? The consumers affected by these practices are a pre-qualified class of victims.”

4. The COCOO-CMA Strategic Playbook: A Model for Action

The following playbooks provide standardized workflows for using the CMA’s platform to generate high-impact intelligence and opportunities.

Playbook A: The “Merger Intervention” (MATOIPO) Engine

  • Objective: To monitor all significant UK mergers, identify contentious deals, and find opportunities to intervene on behalf of third parties or to challenge the CMA’s decision.
  • Execution:
    1. Daily Scan: On a daily basis, review the CMA’s Open cases list, filtering by Case type: “Mergers”.
    2. Isolate High-Risk Deals: Pay special attention to cases that are referred to a Phase 2 investigation. This is a clear signal the CMA has serious concerns.
    3. Dissect the Issues Statement: For any Phase 2 case, immediately download and analyze the “Issues Statement.” This document outlines the CMA’s specific theories of harm and the questions it is seeking to answer.
    4. Find the Intervention Point: The Issues Statement is an open invitation for third parties to submit evidence. If the CMA is concerned about harm to smaller competitors, this is a trigger for COCOO to approach those competitors with a USP to represent them and submit evidence on their behalf.
    5. Analyze the Remedy: If the merger is cleared with remedies, forensically analyze the final decision. Are the remedies weak? Do they create an opportunity for another company? This analysis can form the basis of an appeal to the CAT.
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook positions COCOO as a sophisticated player in the UK merger control regime, able to anticipate CMA actions and create opportunities by representing the interests of parties affected by major deals.

Playbook B: The “Enforcement Gap” Indictment

  • Objective: To use the CMA’s own published guidance to force it to investigate a market it is neglecting.
  • Execution:
    1. Identify the Problem: From other intelligence sources, identify a market with clear consumer harm or anti-competitive practices (e.g., loyalty penalties in the insurance market, opaque pricing in online travel).
    2. Find the Justification: Go to the CMA’s publications library and search for their official “Prioritisation Principles” document.
    3. Build the Case: Draft a formal complaint (COCON) to the CMA. The complaint will be structured around their own principles:
      • Impact: Use Eurostat or other data to show the scale of consumer harm.
      • Strategic Significance: Argue that the issue aligns with the CMA’s stated strategic goals (e.g., protecting vulnerable consumers, promoting digital competition).
      • Likelihood of Success: Present clear preliminary evidence of the misconduct.
      • Resources: Argue that the cost of an investigation is justified by the potential benefit to the public.
  • Strategic Outcome: This playbook makes it procedurally and politically difficult for the CMA to ignore our complaint. It is a direct Challenge Discretion play that can force the opening of a new market study or investigation, from which COCOO can derive further opportunities.

Playbook C: The “Post-Infringement FOC DAM” Cascade

  • Objective: To use a CMA infringement decision as the starting gun to launch a high-value damages action.
  • Execution:
    1. Monitor Decisions: Set up an alert for all final infringement decisions under the Competition Act 1998.
    2. Identify the Perpetrator and Harm: When a decision is published (e.g., the CMA fines construction firms for bid-rigging), immediately download the public version of the decision. Identify the companies involved and the specific nature of the harm (e.g., inflated prices on public sector construction projects).
    3. Identify the Victims: The victims are the customers who overpaid. In the case of bid-rigging on public contracts, the victims are the government departments and local authorities who commissioned the work.
    4. Deploy the USP: Approach the harmed public bodies with a compelling USP: “The CMA’s decision in Case [XYZ] provides you with a legally sound basis for a follow-on damages claim to recover the public funds you overpaid. COCOO is uniquely positioned to manage this claim on your behalf.”
  • Strategic Outcome: This is the most direct path from regulatory action to commercial success for COCOO. It leverages the CMA’s extensive investigatory work to create a ready-made, high-probability litigation opportunity.

Leave a Reply