Open consultation

The UK’s new core product regulation market surveillance and enforcement framework

Published 31 March 2026

Introduction

This consultation seeks views on proposed reforms to UK product regulation market surveillance and enforcement. It complements, and is a companion consultation document to, the wider proposals being consulted on to modernise and strengthen the core UK product safety framework.

Together, these proposals build on feedback from the UK Product Safety Review, which highlighted areas for improvement across the current framework, including significant challenges within the enforcement system for product safety. A key component of any effective product regulation regime is a strong market surveillance and enforcement framework that protects businesses who follow the rules by ensuring a fair and competitive marketplace, while also providing enforcement authorities with the right tools and processes to boost consumer confidence. The UK’s regulatory landscape is complex, with, for example, over 150 pieces of product safety and legal metrology legislation covering a diverse range of products and technical requirements.

Within this landscape, the Product Safety Review identified the challenges presented by fragmented and overlapping enforcement powers, with multiple laws often applying to a single product. This complexity makes swift and consistent action difficult for relevant authorities, and can cause delay and confusion for businesses, for whom it can create unnecessary administrative burdens, hindering economic growth.

Stakeholders also raised concerns about an over-reliance on criminal offences for breaches and called for a more flexible, proportionate approach to enforcement.

As technology evolves, particularly with the integration of software and Artificial Intelligence into products, the regulatory framework must remain agile and responsive to new risks and developments.

The government has committed to reforms that will consolidate enforcement powers, introduce civil monetary penalties as an alternative to criminal prosecution, and ensure that the system meets the challenges of modern supply chains and emerging technologies.

Our goal is to create a more coherent suite of enforcement powers, together with better data sharing opportunities, to improve efficiency and effectiveness and utilise resources to the best effect. While the initial focus is on product safety for those product sectors that DBT is responsible for, our ambition is to design a framework that will work for wider product regulation, including, for example, weighing and measuring instruments, and environmental product regulation. We will also explore the scope of this framework in relation to other sector-specific regulatory powers, such as those for construction products.

We see these proposals as deepening and broadening market surveillance and enforcement options to achieve the original intentions of the legislation.

Through the proposals in this consultation, we aim to:

• Simplify and consolidate enforcement powers to create a comprehensive, coherent, and effective regulatory environment.
• Widen the available options for civil sanctions by introducing monetary penalties, reducing reliance on criminal prosecution.
• Address enforcement challenges posed by online and international supply chains.
• Explore whether cost recovery should form part of the enforcement toolkit and if so, for what types of activities.
• Allow enhanced information sharing between relevant authorities, establishing clear statutory powers to facilitate the secure and effective exchange of data for the purposes of product regulation, safety, and compliance.

These proposals are designed to:

• Enhance consumer protection by enabling quicker, more cost-effective action against unsafe and non-compliant products.
• Support business compliance with clearer, more consistent enforcement and penalties.
• Promote proportionality by aligning sanctions with the severity of breaches.

This is an ambitious plan. We invite stakeholders to share their views on these proposals to ensure the future enforcement regime is robust, fair, and fit for purpose across all areas of product regulation.

Consultees are also invited to respond to the consultation on the UK’s new product safety framework. Those interested in construction products are invited, in addition to this paper, to respond to the construction products reform white paper.

Consultation information

This consultation seeks views on a package of reforms of the market surveillance and enforcement aspects of the product safety framework. It is a companion consultation document to the one the Department has issued on the New Product Safety Framework, and they should be read together. The proposals and questions in this document are in the format ‘B1, B2’ etc. In the New Product Safety Framework consultation document, they are in the format ‘A1, A2’ etc. Please ensure your answers reference the proposal/ questions numbers with the correct letter and number.

Consultation details

Responsible body: Department for Business and Trade (DBT)

Issued: 31 March

Respond by: 23.59pm on 23 June

How to respond

You can respond to this consultation online.

You can also read and respond to the Product Safety Framework consultation online.

We encourage responses to be made through this online platform to assist our analysis of the responses.

If you cannot respond online, you may send your response by email to: EnforceMarketSurvReform@businessandtrade.gov.uk.

If you are responding in writing, please make clear which question each comment relates to. Written responses can also be sent to:

Market Surveillance and Enforcement Policy Team
Department for Business and Trade
Old Admiralty Building
Admiralty Place
London SW1A 2DY

Confidentiality and data protection

DBT is committed to protecting the privacy and security of your information. This notice informs you how we collect and process your personal data in accordance with data protection legislation when you respond to one of our public consultations, which we publish on GOV.UK.

The way in which your data is handled varies depending on how you submit your response, but all information submitted to us will be treated in accordance with data protection principles.

You can read the Public consultations privacy notice. We may modify or amend this privacy notice at our discretion at any time. When we make changes to this notice, the last modified date at the top of this page will be updated. Any modification or amendment to this privacy notice will be applied to you and your data as of that revision date. If there are substantive changes to how your personal data is processed, DBT will take reasonable steps to make sure you know.

Information you provide in response to this consultation, including personal information, may be disclosed in accordance with UK legislation (the Freedom of Information Act 2000, the Data Protection Act 2018 and the Environmental Information Regulations 2004).

If you want the information that you provide to be treated as confidential, please tell us, but be aware that we cannot guarantee confidentiality in all circumstances. An automatic confidentiality disclaimer generated by your IT system will not be regarded by us as a confidentiality request.

In addition, please be aware that DBT uses Qualtrics survey software to process online responses, this involves personal data being sent outside the European Economic Area (EEA). Any processing outside of the EEA will be subject to the safeguards specified within the UK General Data Protection Regulation (UK GDPR), and the Data Protection Act 2018.

We will summarise all responses and publish this summary on GOV.UK. The summary will include a list of organisations that responded, but not people’s personal names, addresses or other contact details.

You can contact our Data Protection Officer (DPO) with any concerns about how we or our services handle your personal information:

Data Protection Officer
Department for Business and Trade
Old Admiralty Building
Admiralty Place
London SW1A 2DY

Email: data.protection@businessandtrade.gov.uk

You can also submit a complaint to the Information Commissioner’s Office (ICO) at:

Information Commissioner’s Office
Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

W: ICO

Tel: 0303 123 1113

You can find out more about your rights as a data subject, and details of how to contact our Data Protection Officer and the ICO in our main privacy notice.

Quality assurance

This consultation has been carried out in accordance with the government’s consultation principles. If you have any complaints about the way this consultation has been conducted, email: enquiries@businessandtrade.gov.uk.

A core framework for market surveillance and enforcement

This section seeks feedback on the proposal to establish a consolidated set of enforcement and market surveillance powers for product regulation. It outlines our intention to develop a common enforcement framework, set out in a single statutory instrument, for use by relevant authorities, by the Department for Business and Trade, and by other government departments responsible for product regulation. This would allow the government to apply a unified and uniform enforcement framework when reviewing existing product regulations or regulating new product areas. Additionally, we are considering approaches to address challenges in enforcing online and international supply chains.

These proposals will protect consumers and other users from harm by:

• making the range of powers simpler to understand, faster to use, and more cost-effective for relevant authorities
• simplifying the identification and management of risks to consumers, thereby reducing harm and enhancing public confidence in product safety, product markets and regulatory protection
• helping prevent unsafe and non-compliant products from entering their market and requiring their removal from the market
• requiring action to address dangerous products that are already in consumers’ homes, with their consent

These proposals will support businesses by:

• setting out a clearer, more consistent market surveillance and enforcement framework for easier understanding and compliance
• allowing innovative businesses to bring new products to market efficiently while ensuring end user safety is paramount
• supporting fair competition and legitimate business growth in domestic and international markets

Proposal B1: Consolidating and modernising powers

We are proposing a comprehensive set of reforms that aims to integrate and modernise current market surveillance and enforcement powers into a single toolkit, within a single statutory instrument, thereby providing the opportunity to replace extensive and duplicative legislation, including on product safety but extending more broadly to wider product regulations over time.

As new technologies and global supply chains introduce novel risks, this enhanced framework will enable regulators to respond rapidly and effectively, safeguarding against harm and boosting the competitiveness of UK businesses both at home and abroad. We anticipate that this proposed new toolkit will replace the complex set of existing powers, including those in sector-specific product regulations, except where there is a compelling reason to retain additional tailored powers.

Relevant authorities will then be able to access a common set of market surveillance and enforcement powers where appropriate to do so. The intention is that these powers will have general application across all sectors and apply across the journey of every product within the scope of regulation under the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025. The toolkit will be kept under review, and where gaps are identified, may be updated using powers in the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, in line with the principles set out in the Code of Conduct. ^{[footnote 1]}

Market surveillance framework

Market surveillance is a system of checks and monitoring activities, through the product journey including at the border and on the market, designed to ensure that products placed on the market comply with applicable regulatory requirements. These activities are essential for maintaining a fair marketplace, protecting consumers, and upholding product regulation by detecting and addressing non-compliance and preventing harmful and/or non-compliant products from being placed on, or circulating on, the UK market. Market surveillance activities require a set of powers to allow relevant authorities to undertake a variety of activities such as entering premises, carrying out inspections, obtaining and checking information, purchasing, examining and testing products.

The UK’s current market surveillance system was initially developed within that of the EU, which the UK helped shape as a Member State. Since the UK’s exit from the EU the government has gained greater flexibility to refine its product regulation framework, and has been reviewing its market surveillance regime to ensure relevant authorities have the powers they need to deliver their functions.

Engagement with Government departments and the Devolved Governments has confirmed that they rely on the UK’s market surveillance powers, as set out in over 71 pieces of product specific legislation, to enforce product regulation within their sectors. This underscores the need for a modernised and coherent set of powers that can be applied consistently across all sectors and routes to market, which works for all relevant authorities, central and local government. While market surveillance priorities may differ, there is broad interest in considering whether a more streamlined, outcomes‑focused set of powers could support more effective oversight without weakening existing capabilities or creating new gaps.

As part of an updated market surveillance and enforcement system, we propose to move away from the market surveillance arrangements established in the Regulation on Accreditation and Market Surveillance (RAMS) in 2008. RAMS can present operational challenges where there is ambiguity as to which relevant authorities can and should act.

We intend to review market surveillance legislation, with the aim of eliminating redundant obligations and providing for effective market surveillance across all routes to market. We will clarify ambiguous terminology and obligations to eliminate confusion about the application of legislation, variations in legal interpretation and inconsistent enforcement across the UK. We will clarify which relevant authorities can and must exercise market surveillance obligations and responsibilities, and which powers apply throughout the product journey; from design and manufacture, to being placed on the market in the UK, to performance, and, where necessary, to disposal at the end of their economic life.

Our ambition is to deliver greater consistency across the whole product regulation landscape. We aim to create a whole UK approach, protecting the integrity of the UK internal market. Some EU law applies in Northern Ireland to secure access for its products to both the UK and EU markets under the Windsor Framework. In revising and consolidating the system, we will consider how current and future EU market surveillance requirements can be accommodated in a unified approach for the UK.

Although there will always be some due process involved to ensure that relevant authorities act competently and proportionately and within their remit, we believe the market surveillance framework can be improved by focusing on outcomes – ongoing consumer and user safety; innovation; speed of entry on to the market; compliant trustworthy businesses contributing to growing trade and economic growth; third party testing proportionate to risk, rather than prescriptive and overly-burdensome administrative or procedural requirements. This calls for effective powers for relevant authorities to monitor marketplaces and check products. Alongside any legislative changes, we will develop and publish detailed guidance for both businesses and relevant authorities. This will allow us to remove some of these administrative provisions, such as annual market surveillance reporting expectations, from the legislation.

Enforcement powers

Enforcement powers are available to relevant authorities across the whole suite of product legislation, enabling them to hold businesses to account and to protect consumers from harmful and non-compliant products. Some of the intervention powers – such as powers to issue Withdrawal and Recall Notices – are common across different sets of regulations. However, there are also instances of distinct powers that are worthy of consideration for a common toolkit across all product regulation enforcement.

We propose creating an updated, comprehensive set of powers for relevant authorities that are fit for purpose. We will do this by consolidating and simplifying investigation and intervention powers from existing legislation, and, where enabled by the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025, by creating new powers where there are gaps. This will be informed by the responses to this consultation and previous experiences of both businesses and relevant authorities.

At the core of the modernised enforcement framework, we propose creating new discretionary powers of investigation and intervention, each with a range of functions that relevant authorities can use proportionately, including to enforce the proposed new requirements on online marketplaces (see proposal B2), while providing consistency and simplicity.

Investigation powers

Current powers enable relevant authorities to obtain, review, and analyse relevant information, documents, and evidence, where potential regulatory breaches are reported or risks identified or as part of monitoring compliance more generally. These powers are fundamental to ensuring enforcement decisions are informed, proportionate and based on facts. They support transparency, accountability, and effective regulatory oversight.

We want to create a modern, proportionate, and streamlined framework where relevant authorities are empowered to take early steps without needing to meet different full investigation thresholds until this is warranted. We expect a revised broad package of investigation powers to support relevant authorities both in their monitoring and surveillance of the marketplace, and as they consider particular products or types of products in more detail.

The revised package will include powers to:

• monitor, inspect, purchase, examine and test products
• require businesses to provide information and documents
• where necessary, seize products, and
• while investigations are taking place, suspend the supply of products

This will enable relevant authorities to monitor compliance proactively, including online, allowing them to assess whether businesses are adhering to their regulatory requirements. We want to provide clarity and simplicity for relevant authorities and enable them to use these powers flexibly, interchangeably and seamlessly across the product journey. We want to provide consistency across regimes, particularly as proactive monitoring may trigger reactive investigative activity.

As part of this process, we are reviewing the powers relevant to product regulation contained within Schedule 5 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015 with a view to incorporating them in the new single toolkit. We will consider whether it is necessary to extend, adapt, or potentially replace these provisions to address any gaps across the product regulation landscape in the UK.

Intervention powers

Intervention powers enable relevant authorities to require businesses across the supply chain to take timely action to prevent, mitigate, or remedy harm or potential harm arising from unsafe products, non-compliance or systemic risk.

Such powers are essential for protecting consumers, safeguarding the public interest, maintaining market integrity, and ensuring that the law is upheld.

Revised intervention powers will include the powers to:

• require compliance with regulatory requirements
• warn consumers and users of potential risks and mark the product in respect of those risks
• withdraw unsafe or non-compliant products from the marketplace
• prohibit the sale of harmful or non-compliant products
• recall, or require the recall of, products from consumers and users

In addition, it will enable relevant authorities, where necessary, to require businesses to make improvements to their processes to address identified risks and enhance overall product regulatory compliance. Appropriate powers to intervene should be available to relevant authorities at whatever point the product has reached within its lifetime.

These powers could be available, where appropriate, in relation to all businesses in the supply chain. This includes those who have physical possession of products and perform certain services (such as warehousing and dispatching) without having ownership of the products (such as fulfilment service providers). This ensures that any business which may have an impact on the product journey can be held accountable for maintaining compliance.

We will remove unnecessary and duplicative powers and replace them with a simpler and more transparent toolkit, addressing existing gaps and adding new powers that allow for proportionate action to be taken where appropriate, such as civil penalties. To support the revised toolkit, we will develop comprehensive and detailed guidance for relevant authorities regarding the application of these powers. This guidance will be published to ensure clarity and transparency for authorities, businesses, users and consumers.

Spotlight – Weighing and measuring instruments enforcement

The new, single, simplified product enforcement framework will apply to products that fall under the Measuring Instruments Regulations and Non-Automatic Weighing Instruments Regulations. These products are subject to conformity assessment and often need to comply with other product regulations with similar assessment and enforcement requirements such as machinery. This will ensure that the new toolbox can be used for all these products to avoid complex and overlapping enforcement powers.

Applying the framework to measuring instruments and non-automatic weighing instruments will deliver clearer, flexible, proportionate and consistent powers for relevant authorities, reduce duplication, improve coordination between relevant authorities. This will enable more efficient use of resources and support a more coherent approach across product regulation.

We are particularly interested in whether stakeholders see this as the right direction to drive simplification, support stronger collaboration, and improve outcomes in enforcement for weighing and measuring instruments. We welcome views on the opportunities, risks, or practical considerations associated with integrating the product powers for measuring instruments and non-automatic weighing instruments into a single, modern enforcement toolkit.

Use of precautionary measures

In the new core framework for product safety, ^{[footnote 2]} we propose replicating the existing General Product Safety Regulations (GPSR) 2005 principle that producers are responsible for ensuring their products are safe and should assess the safety of their products before placing them on the market. This broad, outcomes-based approach, allows producers to place innovative products on the market more quickly and at reduced upfront costs, as long as they adequately assess them as being safe, without the need for a lengthy approvals process for all new products.

While this flexible, proportionate approach ensures product safety in the vast majority of cases, there may be categories of products which are available but where their safety – in particular over the long term – is in doubt, such as where there is a risk of chemical exposure. In specific cases where there is significant uncertainty about the extent of the risk (for example because potential health impacts are long-term) but, if realised, the harm could be significant, the precautionary principle can be applied. ^{[footnote 3]} This enables relevant authorities to take action before full proof of harm exists.

The GPSR 2005 require relevant authorities to take due account of the precautionary principle when making enforcement decisions. Additionally, the EU’s General Product Safety Regulation, which applies in Northern Ireland, incorporates the precautionary principle. It is also an established feature of other regulatory regimes, such as for medical products, chemicals under UK REACH, food safety, and environmental protection.

We recognise the importance of ensuring that any precautionary measures are applied in a way that manages unknown risks without creating undue barriers to product innovation or deterring the development of new technologies. While we are determined to allow innovation to flourish, we believe that this flexibility should come with a ‘backstop’, such as the ability for the Secretary of State to intervene when necessary to protect consumers from product-related harm.

We believe it is important to allow the use of precautionary measures across product regulation in certain specific circumstances where the precautionary principle applies. We are considering establishing a process for the Secretary of State to consider whether to implement a temporary precautionary measure restricting the supply, sale, or online listing of a product where there is reason to believe it could pose a serious risk to consumers but where there is insufficient evidence to determine if the product is harmful. The purpose of these restrictions would be to pause the availability of these products while the Secretary of State works with the producers of these products to better understand the potential for long-term harm.

The duration of any precautionary measure could either be for a specified time period or until the producers have provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the safety of the product. It could be specified at the time of imposition, taking into account the potential severity and nature of the risk, and would be subject to regular review to ensure it remains proportionate. To provide clarity and reassurance to businesses, the process could also set out the necessary steps producers must take to address the identified concerns, including providing substantiating evidence of safety.

Once the Secretary of State is satisfied that the concerns have been adequately addressed, the restrictive measure would be lifted and normal market access restored. We would expect that this will usually be the outcome given producers’ obligation to only place safe and/or compliant products on the market. However, if sufficient evidence is not provided or the risk is proven to be sufficiently serious, other action may be taken including formalising restrictions on the product.

Question B1a: Do you agree that the UK product regulation market surveillance and enforcement legislation should be reformed to establish a single, coherent set of enforcement powers available regardless of where it might be utilised within the product journey (e.g. at the border)?

Response options:

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

Question B1b: Please explain your answer.

Question B2a: Do you agree this new enforcement ‘toolkit’ should apply to product regulation more widely, beyond product safety? For example, should apply to measuring instruments and non-automatic weighing instruments (but not to other metrology legislation e.g. specified quantities).

Response options:

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

Question B2b: Please explain your answer.

Question B3: What challenges might there be in having fewer, more flexible, consolidated, enforcement powers for product regulations?

Question B4: What additional reforms to existing powers would improve enforcement of metrology legislation?

Question B5a: Which provisions in product regulation legislation create unnecessary administrative process? Please describe and explain any administrative burdens you are aware of.

Question B5b: Please provide what you think could be an alternative.

Question B6: How could we simplify enforcement provisions (including for market surveillance) across the UK to establish a coherent and consistent UK-wide framework that supports effective enforcement in both Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in line with the government’s Windsor Framework obligations?

Proposal B2: Addressing the enforcement challenges of global and online supply chains

Our ambition is that the new enforcement powers toolkit will apply to all product regulation obligations, rather than being specific to a product sector or route to market. We intend it will be available for the enforcement of the new online marketplace requirements. We will further consider meaningful penalties that are proportionate to the offence and business size.

We recognise that the growth in e-commerce business models, particularly online marketplaces, has brought significant challenges to the product regulation framework. A number of proposals are set out in the core product safety framework consultation paper to place duties on online marketplaces to take actions to ensure products and sellers on their sites are safe, to improve consumer information, and to cooperate with relevant authorities. We recognise too that there is an enforcement challenge in relation to overseas businesses selling unsafe or non-compliant products into the UK market via online channels. ^{[footnote 2]} Therefore, we will consider whether additional enforcement powers are required to address online sale and international supply chain actors.

Some of the requirements proposed within the New Product Safety Framework consultation paper consultation will aid the market surveillance and enforcement of online sales. These include proposal A11 for online marketplaces to have a single point of contact, and our intention to treat businesses based abroad distance selling into the UK as producers, as it would avoid the need to identify and take action all the way down the overseas supply chain.

The challenge of enforcing against online actors, especially those based abroad, is one that is shared with many other countries and has a range of possible solutions. For example, the EU’s approach to tackling this challenge has been to introduce a requirement for all consumer products to have a Responsible Economic Operator based in the EU to verify compliance and traceability. Alternatively, Japan has established a system to publicly announce the names of businesses that violate laws and orders relating to product safety.

The UK’s Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2025 ^{[footnote 4]} along with the Market Surveillance (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 ^{[footnote 5]} includes the power for relevant authorities under that Act to apply to the court for an Online Interface Order where there are no other available means of stopping a consumer law offence that would risk serious harm. This may direct the recipient to remove content from, disable access to, display warnings on, or delete the domain name of an online interface.

We will consider whether we need a similar power to enforce against online actors, including online sellers or marketplaces, where other means to enforce against them have been exhausted. We may also consider whether there are situations where online marketplaces should have a presence in the UK, such as those with a high number of UK sales or those that have demonstrated non-compliance and lack of cooperation with the relevant authority in improving product safety on their sites. The ability to take enforcement action domestically may avoid the need to apply for an Online Interface Order or equivalent powers to remove online content or access.

Question B7: What bespoke powers are required to enforce against online and overseas supply chain actors, in addition to the broad powers outlined under Proposal B1?

Enforcement penalties framework

This section presents our approach to penalties, proposes extending the use of undertakings to support adherence to product regulation expectations, and details the proposal to introduce a range of civil monetary penalties and their applications.

These proposals will protect consumers and others from harm and support businesses to comply with requirements:

• Proportionate penalties encourage businesses to fix compliance issues quickly, avoiding harsh penalties for minor or first offences, and support a more open regulatory approach. They act as a deterrent and thereby encourage businesses to minimise the availability of non-compliant products on the market, thus protecting consumers.
• Business-led undertakings foster a culture of accountability that prioritises consumer protection and mitigates future risks.
• Civil monetary penalties give businesses clear expectations of what penalties they might face and help them manage compliance accordingly.
• Combining undertakings with civil monetary penalties allows businesses to show they are committed to resolving issues, protecting both their reputation and consumer safety.

Proposal B3: Proportionate and effective penalties

Most businesses are responsible and want to comply with their legal obligations. A primary aim of relevant authorities is to support businesses in understanding and meeting their legal obligations, through effective, proportionate and timely action. Penalties, therefore, would not usually be the first resort except, for example, in the face of flagrant non-compliance or serious harm. We will consider, therefore, whether the regulatory toolkit could be strengthened by complementing or replacing criminal penalties, such as imprisonment or a fine, where appropriate, with a range of civil sanctions, such as a civil monetary penalty, which does not of itself generate a criminal record. Criminal and civil sanctions should be effective and proportionate to the actual or potential harm the offence or breach can cause, and/or the significance of the duties or responsibilities for the proper functioning of product regulation frameworks. Penalties should also be capable of deterring non-compliance and it may therefore need to be possible to vary them depending on the size and nature of the business sanctioned.

In the current sets of product regulations, similar offences attract similar penalties. We propose continuing this approach and categorising offences so that penalties can be applied in a simple and proportionate way. The maximum penalty or sanction for each category should be applied consistently across product regulations and be proportionate to the type of potential or actual harm. We propose that, where possible, offences/ breaches should be categorised according to the following types of obligation or requirement.

Core prohibitions

Core prohibitions include breaching the general safety requirement in the new framework, due care and due diligence requirements for online marketplaces and onward suppliers in the new framework, and the essential safety requirements as set out within the current product-specific regulations. The general and essential safety requirements are the foundation of product safety regulation and are the most fundamental requirements.

We aim to apply core prohibitions more broadly across product regulation, for example, breaching the requirements for electromagnetic and radio equipment not to exceed the level above which they cannot operate as intended, and the requirements that radio equipment must be constructed so that it effectively uses and supports the efficient use of radio spectrum to avoid harmful interference.

Pre-market requirements

Pre-market requirements are a series of administrative activities which businesses need to carry out before a product is placed on the market. Pre-market requirements are varied. They include requirements to:

• draw up correct technical documentation
• affix the conformity mark products
• put the type, serial or batch number of the product
• put the name, registered trade name, or registered trademark of the manufacturer on the product
• put a postal contact address for the manufacturer on the product
• put the Approved Body number on the product
• put the relevant inscriptions on the product
• label the product correctly
• draw up the Declaration of Conformity properly
• provide user information

On-market requirements

On-market requirements are the ongoing activities which business need to adhere to once a product is made available and/or placed on the market. On-market requirements can include:

• monitoring products for potential safety and/or compliance issues
• reporting appropriately to the relevant authorities
• taking corrective action where a product is found to be non-compliant or presents a risk
• complying with any other ongoing responsibilities as specified under regulations

Investigation obligations

When relevant authorities are carrying out monitoring functions or have reason to suspect or believe a product may be non-compliant or harmful they may use investigatory powers. Those powers include, to name but two by way of example, requiring a business to:

• cooperate with relevant authorities, providing any assistance or information that the authority considers necessary
• provide information, records, or a sample to relevant authorities that they may not be under a general duty to provide on request and to provide explanations of the documents

Notice obligations

When relevant authorities require businesses to take certain actions to be compliant, recall products or withdraw harmful or non-compliant products from the market, they issue the business with a statutory notice. These actions must be implemented.

We will be looking at other regulatory regimes to determine an appropriate scale of penalties, but at this stage are interested in views on this approach to categorisation.

Question B8a: To what extent do you agree with this approach of categorising offences?

Response options:

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

Question B8b: Please explain your answer.

Question B9a: To what extent do you agree that this approach enables the application of proportionate penalties?

Response options:

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

Question B9b Please explain your answer.

Enforcement undertakings

As part of ensuring proportionate enforcement, we propose enabling a business that acknowledges a compliance issue to offer an enforcement undertaking to the relevant authority. The business will commit that by a specified deadline it will take the necessary corrective actions to ensure that the non-compliance is rectified and will not occur again. This proposal reflects feedback received through the Product Safety Review, highlighting the value of more flexible and proportionate tools within the enforcement framework.

An enforcement undertaking, if accepted by the relevant authority, commits the business to the specified corrective actions. Providing that these are completed within agreed timescales and deliver the required improvements, the business will not be subject to further enforcement action or prosecution. The new framework may allow authorities to accept undertakings that include measures to address the consequences of non-compliance. Such provisions are already available in certain other types of regulations. ^{[footnote 6]} Importantly, providing an undertaking does not remove the requirement to comply with the underlying regulatory obligations.

Undertakings may be more appropriate for addressing less serious breaches, such as labelling issues or production process issues, and especially when offered by a business at an early stage and when relevant authorities are confident that the commitments provided will be met effectively within explicit timescales. The use of undertakings facilitates improvements without necessitating formal notices or legal proceedings. They may therefore be less suitable where an unsafe product is being made available on the market.

Incorporating an undertakings framework into the product regulation enforcement toolkit allows for a more flexible, proportionate, and efficient response to non-compliance. It safeguards consumer interests without undermining consumer safety, whilst supporting businesses that take prompt action to address issues by allowing them to continue to make products available, thereby supporting their ability to trade and grow.

We propose a single, cross-government framework that relevant authorities will use to consider, accept and monitor an undertaking. Each participating relevant authority should set this out in guidance on their website, and should be transparent about any undertakings agreed.

Spotlight – Use of undertakings

The Office for Product Safety and Standards (OPSS) enforces the Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021 on behalf of the Department for Energy Security and Net Zero (DESNZ). These regulations, which aim to help manage the increase in electricity demand during the transition to electric vehicles, introduced new requirements for electric vehicle charge points supplied in Great Britain for private use in homes and workplaces. These include security requirements which came into effect at the end of 2022.

In November 2023 a charge point manufacturer advised OPSS that their technical solution to meet one of the security requirements was not fully compliant with the regulations and proposed an Enforcement Undertaking under which they committed to address the non-compliance by June 2024. Having assured itself that the non-compliance posed no risk to consumers, OPSS accepted the Enforcement Undertaking from the business. This enabled the manufacturer to continue to sell the products while they developed and implemented a software update. All products sold during this period were brought up to the required standard once the updated software was implemented. The business subsequently satisfied OPSS that it had completed the proposed actions to rectify the non-compliance within the agreed timeframe, and a completion certificate was issued.

In the domestic charge point market, Enforcement Undertakings have enabled OPSS to take a proportionate, pragmatic and transparent approach to ensuring that non-compliance is addressed in a timely manner while ensuring that businesses are supported to invest in developing compliant products, supporting EV adoption, and avoiding unnecessary e-waste.

Question B10a: Should enforcement undertakings be available across all product regulations?

Response options:

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Question B10b: If no, what products, regulatory obligations or types of non-compliance should be excluded and why?

Question B11a: Should we consider whether to accept undertakings that seek to benefit those affected by the non-compliance?

Response options:

• Yes
• No
• Don’t know

Question B11b: Please explain your answer.

Proposal B4: Civil monetary penalties

While some areas of product regulation already provide for civil monetary penalties, in other areas, such as product safety, contraventions are almost exclusively considered as criminal offences and met with criminal sanctions. Reliance on criminal sanctions can limit the ability of relevant authorities to take appropriate, proportionate, flexible and quick action. There are a range of proportionate interventions available for unintentional and minor non-compliance where minimal harm has been caused, such as advice, notices etc. We want alternative proportionate penalties available for serious breaches.

We therefore propose implementing the provision in section 3(9)(c) of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 to allow relevant authorities to impose further civil sanctions, including in the form of civil monetary penalties (CMPs).

Where permitted in law, a civil monetary penalty can be imposed by a regulator as a penalty for non-compliance with legal obligations. Non-payment can lead to pursuit as a civil debt through the civil courts. It is a civil sanction as it can be imposed without resort to the criminal courts, and does not lead to a criminal record, or imprisonment for non-payment, unlike a fine.

We are seeking views on which types of CMPs would have the greatest impact in supporting relevant authorities to take proportionate action and maintain effective consumer protection. We are interested in views on what other civil sanctions should be introduced, such as obligations to admit fault publicly, or pay compensation.

CMPs have been shown to be an effective driver of compliance in certain circumstances. ^{[footnote 7]} They may be particularly suitable for addressing non-compliance, where businesses fail to comply with a statutory notice and take corrective action. CMPs enable relevant authorities to sanction such breaches efficiently, without resorting to lengthy court proceedings, thereby saving time and resources for both authorities and businesses. This approach encourages compliance with statutory notices and, depending on the size or nature of the CMP, can act as a deterrent for repeated or persistent infractions, supporting a proportionate enforcement regime. Of course, parties would still have the right to appeal or challenge a CMP, which could result in the matter being considered by a court, particularly where significant sums are involved or the penalty is disputed.

We welcome views on a range of potential approaches, including:

• fixed monetary penalties – offering immediate sanctions for straightforward breaches
• variable monetary penalties – allowing penalties to reflect the gravity, scale, or impact of the breach
• escalating monetary penalties – increasing in severity based on the length of time a regulatory requirement is not met, such as a daily charge, but also for those repeated or persistent breaches by a single business

Your feedback will help shape a system that is proportionate, flexible and effective, ensuring that relevant authorities have the right tools to uphold high levels of consumer protection and encourage business compliance across a modern, innovative and increasingly digital product landscape.

Question B12: Which instances of product regulation non-compliance would you consider FIXED monetary penalties a useful, proportionate and effective response?

Question B13: For which instances of product regulation non-compliance would you consider VARIABLE monetary penalties a useful, proportionate and effective response?

Question B14: In which circumstances would you consider an escalating monetary penalty system a useful, proportionate and effective response?

Question B15a: To what extent do you agree / disagree that monetary penalties should be escalated by a pre-set amount, or by a percentage of the original penalty?

Response options:

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

Question B15b: Please explain and give examples to illustrate your answer.

Question B16: Please list any other form of civil sanction that may be appropriate for either product safety, or broader product regulations?

Wider enforcement supporting framework

Proposal B5: Cost recovery framework

Section 8 of the Product Regulation and Metrology Act 2025 provides the powers to create the opportunity for recovery of costs incurred by relevant authorities when carrying out functions conferred on the authority. We are considering whether, and in what circumstances, a cost recovery mechanism would be appropriate within the common product regulation enforcement framework.

Cost recovery could, in principle, help ensure that the financial burden of regulating does not fall solely on public resources, and that businesses whose actions require significant regulatory intervention contribute fairly to those costs. However, the design of any cost recovery model would require careful consideration. Cost recovery approaches can be complex to administer and may not always achieve the intended behavioural incentives. We therefore want to explore this concept further before forming a firm proposal.

At this stage, we are seeking views on:

• Whether cost recovery should form part of the enforcement toolkit at all, and if so, what objectives it should serve.
• The types of regulatory activities for which cost recovery may be appropriate, for example gaining assurance with regard to bringing high hazard products to market, significant investigations, monitoring of corrective action and or interventions required after unsafe products have reached end users.
• The principles that should govern any such framework, including proportionality, fairness, transparency, administrative feasibility, and the potential impact on business behaviour.

We are not proposing a specific model at this stage. Instead, we welcome evidence and insight on the circumstances in which cost recovery may be desirable, the risks and unintended consequences that may arise, and any safeguards that should be built into future policy design.

Question B17a: To what extent would you agree / disagree that cost recovery would be an appropriate or beneficial feature within the UK product regulation enforcement regime?

Response options:

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

Question B17b: Please explain and give examples to illustrate your answer.

Question B18a: Please list principles you consider should guide the design of any potential cost recovery provisions for product regulation enforcement?

Question B18b: Please explain and give examples to illustrate your answer.

Proposal B6: Information sharing

Enhanced information sharing between relevant authorities, establishing clear statutory powers to facilitate the secure and effective exchange of data for the purposes of product regulation, safety, and compliance, is key to an effective product regulation enforcement regime.

We consider that the core enforcement framework should include the ability to obtain and share information as a fundamental feature for effective monitoring and enforcement. Relevant authorities must be equipped to share data in a timely way to enable improved identification of a product’s potential risks and respond swiftly to emerging threats.

The evolving complexity of supply chains and the increasing integration of technology into products further heighten the need for comprehensive data to inform enforcement activities.

To ensure public trust and safeguard individual rights, it is essential that any information collected is subject to clear obligations regarding its use and the purpose for which it is gathered, in line with existing Data Protection legislation. The consolidated enforcement toolkit will clearly set out criteria for data collection, specifying what information may be obtained, how it will be used, who it might be shared with, how long it will be retained and the safeguards in place to protect confidentiality and privacy. This not only reassures stakeholders but also ensures that data is used solely to support regulatory objectives, such as protecting consumers, supporting business compliance, and maintaining fair competition.

However, effective and decisive enforcement action often depends on the ability to request, obtain, and subsequently share relevant data between authorities. The power to collect information must be complemented by the ability to share it with other bodies—such as relevant authorities, emergency services, government departments and their agencies or a specified person who may each hold key pieces of the product regulation enforcement ‘puzzle’. Sharing data in a controlled, meaningful manner enables a coordinated response to risks, prevents duplication of effort, and ensures that enforcement actions are based on the fullest possible understanding of the facts.

Ultimately, embedding clear powers for information sharing within the enforcement toolkit is not only a matter of operational efficiency but also a cornerstone of effective regulatory activity. By enabling authorities to act on the best available evidence and collaborate across organisational boundaries, these provisions help to ensure that enforcement is both proportionate and targeted, supporting a safer and more competitive market for all.

Question B19a: To what extent would you agree / disagree that greater powers are needed, beyond establishing a legal framework, to facilitate sharing information between relevant authorities, emergency services, and specified persons for product regulation, safety, and compliance?

Response options:

• Strongly agree
• Somewhat agree
• Neither agree nor disagree
• Somewhat disagree
• Strongly disagree

Question B19b: Please explain and give examples to illustrate your answer.

Question B20a: Please list the information you consider should be made available for the purposes of product enforcement.

Question B20b: Please list which bodies or persons such information should be shared between to ensure effective market surveillance and enforcement.

Question B21a: Please list any additional safeguards you would wish to see within information sharing arrangements to prevent the improper use of data.

Question B21b: Please explain and give examples to illustrate your answer.

Next steps

The consultation will last for 12 weeks. We will analyse all consultation responses and publish the government response shortly thereafter. Subject to consultation outcomes, we will prepare the necessary secondary legislation for laying in Parliament. Where primary legislation is required, we will set out the planned legislative route supported by implementation guidance for businesses and relevant authorities and timescales in our government response.

This consultation forms part of the wider product safety reform consultation package: the core framework proposals and the enforcement and market surveillance proposals. We will publish our government response to both pillars together to provide a single, coherent implementation pathway.

Footnotes

1. Product safety: developing policy and legislation – a Code of Conduct for policy makers ↩

2. Read and respond to the consultation on the UK’s product safety framework issued by the Department for Business and Trade / Office for Product Safety and Standards alongside this one. ↩ ↩²

3. Product Safety Risk Assessment Methodology (PRISM) Guidance Version 2 ↩

4. The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 ↩

5. The Market Surveillance (Northern Ireland) Regulations 2021 as it applies to products made available/ placed on the market within Northern Ireland. ↩

6. The Electric Vehicles (Smart Charge Points) Regulations 2021 currently use undertakings as a tool to support enforcement. Read guidance on the Department’s approach to undertakings in relation to these regulations. ↩

7. See, for example: Local authority enforcement in the private rented sector: headline report. ↩