At first glance, the government’s crackdown on so-called “subscription traps” is exactly the kind of intervention consumers have been crying out for. Clearer sign-ups, reminder notices before you’re charged, easier cancellations and a 14-day cooling-off period when a contract renews.

Listen to this article

Frankly, it’s common sense, because right now, millions of people are being quietly rolled from “free trials” into expensive contracts, often without realising until the money has already left their account. To put this into perspective, nearly 10 million subscriptions in the UK are unwanted, costing consumers an eye-watering £1.6 billion a year.

So yes, this is a win. But here’s the uncomfortable question: if we know all of this, why are consumers being told to wait until 2027? That’s the real issue.

This isn’t a new problem. Regulators, consumer groups, myself on the LBC Consumer Hour and even ministers themselves have been talking about subscription traps for years. We’ve had consultations, draft legislation and now, finally, confirmation of reforms. Yet consumers will still spend the next year (at least) trapped in the very practices the government admits are unfair. In the middle of a cost-of-living crisis, that delay matters.

We are not talking about minor inconvenience. This is about households losing money every single month, often £14 per subscription, because cancelling is too difficult or the terms were not clear in the first place.

So why the delay? The official answer is complexity.

Businesses need time to adjust systems, redesign sign-up flows, and comply with new rules under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act. That’s fair, to a point. But let’s be honest: many of these “complex systems” were designed to make it easy to sign up and hard to leave. If companies can build friction into cancellation, they can remove it just as quickly.

There is another concern which is will this actually go far enough?

The UK is still stopping short of a full “one-click cancel” rule like we’ve seen proposed elsewhere and there are carve-outs, certain memberships won’t be covered at all.

So while the direction is right, enforcement will be everything. History has therefore shown that without real teeth, serious fines, proactive regulation, and clear accountability, there’s a risk that some firms will simply adapt their tactics rather than abandon them.

That said, credit where it’s due. If properly enforced, these reforms could genuinely shift the balance of power back to consumers.

More transparency, less trickery and crucially, the ability to walk away without jumping through hoops. That’s long overdue, but I have to ask the key question again; for millions of people paying for things they don’t want, don’t use, or didn’t even realise they signed up to is severely damaging, why should they have to wait for these new protections?

Dean Dunham KC presents LBC's Consumer Hour every Sunday from 8pm-9pm.

LBC Opinion provides a platform for diverse opinions on current affairs and matters of public interest.

The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the official LBC position.

To contact us email opinion@lbc.co.uk

© LBC