Inflation lawsuits in the UK are not a single category: no cause of action in English law is called “inflation.” What exists instead is a cluster of recent cases and regulatory actions that accuse companies of inflating consumer prices through anticompetitive conduct, challenge government decisions taken during the energy crisis, or dispute how inflation itself is measured for pensions. The highest-value of these is a £7.3 billion collective action against Google, certified by the Competition Appeal Tribunal in November 2024 and now moving toward trial.
The £7.3 Billion Google Search Class Action
Stopford v Alphabet Inc. was filed at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in 2023 by Nikki Stopford, co-founder of Consumer Voice, represented by Hausfeld & Co. LLP and funded by Hereford Litigation. The claim alleges Google cemented its dominance in online search by requiring mobile manufacturers to pre-install its apps and paying Apple billions to remain the default search engine on Safari. According to the claim, that dominance let Google charge advertisers excessive fees, which were passed on to UK consumers as higher prices.1Silicon UK. Google Faces UK Lawsuit Claim It Contributes to Cost of Living Crisis
The claim seeks £7.3 billion in compensation for roughly 65 million UK consumers aged 16 and over, which works out to at least £100 per person.1Silicon UK. Google Faces UK Lawsuit Claim It Contributes to Cost of Living Crisis Google applied in May 2024 to strike the claim out and obtain summary judgment. On 22 November 2024, the Tribunal unanimously granted a Collective Proceedings Order, certified the case on an opt-out basis, authorised Stopford as class representative, and dismissed Google’s strike-out application.2Competition Appeal Tribunal. Stopford v Alphabet Inc and Others, Judgment Google was ordered to pay £750,000 toward the costs of opposing certification.3Competition Appeal Tribunal. Stopford v Alphabet Inc and Others, Order of the Chair The opt-out deadline passed on 18 March 2025, and the case is active, with case management conferences held in 2025 and 2026.4Competition Appeal Tribunal. Stopford v Alphabet Inc and Others, Case Page
Other Competition Class Actions Over Inflated Prices
The Google case sits inside a wider run of UK collective actions alleging that dominant firms overcharged consumers.
The longest-running of them, Merricks v Mastercard, settled for £200 million, approved by the Competition Appeal Tribunal on 20 May 2025. The claim alleged Mastercard’s interchange fees caused consumers to overpay for goods and services. The settlement ring-fenced £100 million for class members, with expected payments of £45 to £70 per person; roughly £45.6 million went to the litigation funder as a minimum return; and the remaining £54.4 million was set aside to top up consumer payouts if take-up exceeded 5%, with any balance going to charity.5Competition Appeal Tribunal. Merricks v Mastercard, Judgment on Collective Settlement Approval Challenges from litigation funder Innsworth Capital, which had argued for capping consumer payouts at £4 per person, were rejected, and Innsworth was ordered to pay over £730,000 in costs.6Mastercard Consumer Claim. Official Settlement Information
More recent claims filed and certified in 2025 include an action against Amazon alleging its price parity policies prevent sellers from offering lower prices on competing platforms, brought on behalf of over 45 million consumers; a claim against Microsoft alleging that restrictions on pre-owned software licences artificially inflated prices; and a separate claim against Amazon’s “Buy Box” selection process. The two Amazon claims were jointly certified in July 2025.7Hausfeld. Year in Review: Collective Redress
Not every case has reached a verdict. A consumer class action against Qualcomm, led by Which? and alleging the chipmaker’s licensing practices inflated smartphone prices, went to trial in late 2025 but was withdrawn before judgment. The reported settlement did not include direct compensation to class members.8Competition Appeal Tribunal. Consumers’ Association v Qualcomm, Case Page9Law360. UK Consumer Group Drops £480M Qualcomm Class Action
Energy Supplier Challenges and Ofgem Enforcement
The sharp rise in gas and electricity prices after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine produced its own litigation.
When Bulb collapsed in November 2021 with 1.5 million customers, the government put it into a special administration regime and approved its sale to Octopus Energy in late 2022. British Gas, ScottishPower, and E.ON brought judicial review proceedings, arguing the sale was not “open, fair and transparent” and that Octopus received preferential treatment. On 31 March 2023, Lord Justice Singh and Mr Justice Foxton refused permission for judicial review on grounds of undue delay and said that, even without delay, the public law challenges were “not reasonably arguable.” The court found Octopus paid a fair price in an open competitive process, and that information-sharing “far exceeded what would be normal.” The gross cost of the Bulb bailout exceeded £3 billion, though Octopus was expected to repay £2.96 billion under the terms of the deal.10Judiciary UK. British Gas and Others v Secretary of State, Judgment11The Guardian. UK Energy Firms Lose High Court Challenge Over Handling of Bulb Sale
Regulatory enforcement has run in parallel. In May 2025, following an Ofgem review, ten suppliers including Octopus Energy, E.ON Next, EDF, and Ovo Energy agreed to pay a combined £7 million (£5.6 million in refunds and £1.4 million in goodwill payments) to over 34,000 customers incorrectly charged standing charges above the price cap between January 2019 and September 2024. Ofgem separately ordered Good Energy to pay £150,000 to 2,284 former prepayment-meter customers for failing to issue final bills within the required six-week window, a practice ongoing since 2014.12The Guardian. UK Energy Firms Overcharging Customers, Compensation In February 2025, Ofgem warned suppliers they faced potential fines for “systematically breaking the rules” on back billing (billing for energy used more than 12 months earlier, which Ofgem banned in 2018). Citizens Advice recorded billing complaints rising from 47,000 in 2023 to nearly 60,000 in 2024, and Energy Secretary Ed Miliband wrote to Ofgem urging it to “challenge unlawful back billing.”13BBC. Ofgem Warns Energy Suppliers on Back Billing
CMA Investigations Into Grocery and Infant Formula Prices
As food prices rose, the Competition and Markets Authority looked at whether weak competition was fuelling grocery inflation. Its November 2023 market study found that, at the retail level, high grocery inflation “does not appear to have been driven at an aggregate level by weak or ineffective competition between retailers.” About three-quarters of branded manufacturers had increased their unit profitability during the inflationary period, pushing prices to retailers beyond their input costs. The CMA concluded that brand loyalty and consumer switching to own-label products supplied enough competitive pressure that this did not, overall, show ineffective competition.14GOV.UK. Price Inflation and Competition in Food and Grocery Manufacturing and Supply
Infant formula was the exception. The CMA described the market as highly concentrated, with strong brands, very limited own-label alternatives, and little evidence of parents switching to cheaper options despite significant price differences. The average price of powdered infant formula had risen over 25% between March 2021 and April 2023.15GOV.UK. CMA Infant Formula Market Study, Final Report In February 2025, the CMA’s final report concluded that “weak or ineffective competition” left suppliers with insufficient incentive to compete on price, with a disproportionate impact on low-income families. It made 11 recommendations, and in December 2025 a four-nations government response committed to non-legislative measures focused on consumer information, enforcement, and easier product comparison.16Welsh Government. Response to Competition and Markets Authority’s Report on Infant Formula The CMA’s work had already prompted some voluntary price cuts: Danone reduced its Aptamil prices by 7% in January 2024, triggering reductions at other retailers.17Food Foundation. Profiteering During the Cost-of-Living Crisis
Pension Disputes Over How Inflation Is Measured
Inflation does not only drive consumer prices. It also sets how much pensioners receive, and two legal disputes have tested how UK pensions are linked to inflation indices.
In BT Pension Scheme Trustees v UK Statistics Authority, decided on 1 September 2022, trustees of the BT, Ford, and Marks & Spencer defined benefit schemes challenged the government’s plan to reform the Retail Prices Index by aligning it with the newer CPIH measure from 2030. The expected 1% reduction in RPI was estimated to cut the value of RPI-linked government bonds by £90 to £100 billion, with corresponding reductions in pension payments and transfer values.18Freshfields. UK High Court Rejects Challenge to RPI Reform The High Court dismissed the challenge on all grounds, ruling that the UK Statistics Authority has the legal power to make “fundamental changes” to RPI and that Parliament did not require it to balance the competing interests of gilt-holders or pensioners when making statistical decisions.19Dalriada Trustees. High Court Throws Out RPI/CPIH Judicial Review Case The reform remains scheduled for 2030.
A separate case went the other way for the member. At the Pensions Ombudsman, a member of the Thales UK Pension Scheme challenged the trustee’s decision to switch indexation from RPI to CPI retrospectively to January 2011. The Ombudsman ruled the scheme rules “hard-coded” RPI as the intended index, directed the trustee to recalculate the pension using RPI, and ordered payment of all arrears with interest. The trustee’s appeal was dismissed.20Pensions Ombudsman. Retail Prices Index v Consumer Prices Index
Litigation Funding After PACCAR
Whether large consumer actions can be brought at all now depends on a 2023 Supreme Court ruling. In R (PACCAR Inc) v Competition Appeal Tribunal, decided in July 2023, the court held that third-party litigation funding agreements are “damages-based agreements” under existing statute. Because damages-based agreements must meet strict regulatory requirements that most funding arrangements did not satisfy, the decision rendered many existing funding deals unenforceable and chilled new filings.21GOV.UK. Increased Access to Justice for Claimants to Take on Powerful Organisations in Court
Funders restructured their agreements, typically calculating fees as a multiple of invested costs rather than a percentage of damages. In July 2025, the Court of Appeal confirmed in Sony v Alex Neill Class Representative Ltd that those restructured agreements are valid: a fee based on a multiple of outlay is not a damages-based agreement. Sir Julian Flaux wrote that interpreting the law otherwise would make third-party funding “practically impossible,” producing an “absurd result.”224 New Square. Court of Appeal Dismisses Post-PACCAR Challenge to Litigation Funding Arrangements The Supreme Court refused permission to appeal.23White & Case. UK Moves to Reverse PACCAR Decision and Regulate Third-Party Litigation Funding
In June 2025, the Civil Justice Council recommended legislation clarifying that funding agreements are not damages-based agreements, applied both prospectively and retrospectively, together with a new “light-touch” statutory regulatory framework covering disclosure, capital adequacy, conflicts of interest, and consumer protections.24Judiciary UK. CJC Review of Litigation Funding, Final Report On 17 December 2025, the government confirmed it would legislate to reverse PACCAR and set up a new regulatory scheme for funders.21GOV.UK. Increased Access to Justice for Claimants to Take on Powerful Organisations in Court