Why Insurance Add-Ons Are in the Crosshairs Despite DMCCA Exemption
Prime Minister Andy Burnham's August 9 pledge to tackle subscription traps and deceptive pricing across retail sends a clear signal: auto-renewal practices and hidden add-on costs are firmly in the political crosshairs. The consultation under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (DMCCA) will target fake discounts, invented recommended retail prices, and tricks that make it harder to leave a service than to join. The incoming subscription rules, due January 2027, mandate upfront cost transparency, regular renewal reminders, and a straightforward exit path, with a 14-day cooling‑off period after long‑term contract auto‑renewals.
Insurance products regulated by the Financial Conduct Authority (FCA) are formally exempt from the DMCCA subscription regime. However, that legal carve‑out does not offer a free pass. The FCA already requires far‑reaching fair‑value and consumer‑duty compliance, and its rules on add‑on selling and auto‑renewal cancellation are tighter than the DMCCA’s baseline in several respects. The Prime Minister’s announcement therefore amplifies an existing regulatory drumbeat, making it impossible for insurers and brokers to treat the DMCCA exemption as an excuse to delay improvements.
Personal lines insurers routinely bundle legal expenses, breakdown cover, and key cover alongside motor and home policies, often as opt‑out or pre‑selected extras. Since April 2016, the FCA has banned opt‑out selling of financial‑services add‑ons, requiring consumers to actively choose any supplementary product. After an update to ICOBS 6A.6 in June 2026, firms are now expressly obliged to ensure that the cancellation method for an auto‑renewal feature is at least as easy as the purchase method. That simple, concrete rule is the litmus test that can flag a compliance gap today.
What the Combined Regulatory Pressure Means for Brokers and Insurers
The FCA’s Auto‑Renewal Cancellation Parity Rule: A Live Compliance Risk
The updated ICOBS 6A.6 requirement that cancellation be “as easy as purchase” is not a future ambition—it is a current regulatory standard. If a customer can buy an add‑on with a two‑click online journey but must phone a call centre during business hours to cancel, that mismatch already constitutes a breach. Brokers running their own digital journeys, or reviewing an insurer partner’s renewal flow before recommending it, should walk through both paths and time them side by side. The FCA’s Consumer Duty amplifies this by demanding that firms remove unreasonable barriers to switching and avoid foreseeable harm.
DMCCA Exemption Is Not a Safe Harbour
While FCA‑regulated insurance sits outside the DMCCA subscription rules, the political momentum behind Burnham’s cost‑of‑living agenda means that any perceived consumer detriment in add‑on sales or auto‑renewals will attract heightened scrutiny. The government has already removed a tax from domestic electricity bills, capped bus fares, and lowered business rates for hospitality venues. The broader narrative creates an environment where regulators are under pressure to act, and the FCA has shown it is willing to flex its existing powers. The DMCCA’s principles on transparency and ease of exit are already mirrored—and in places exceeded—by FCA rules; firms cannot rely on the DMCCA exemption to justify poor practices.
Product Governance Failures Are Already in the Spotlight
The FCA’s 2024 thematic review TR24/2 found widespread shortcomings in how insurers and intermediaries manage product oversight. Assessing 28 manufacturers and 39 distributors across ten general insurance and pure protection products, the regulator was “disappointed to see many firms failing to fully meet their regulatory obligations under PROD 4,” particularly around fair value assessments, target‑market definitions, and distribution oversight. Brokers and aggregators that deploy multi‑year policy locks or pre‑selected add‑on bundles face particular pressure under this framework. In 2026, the FCA is actively testing firms’ pricing, product governance, and customer treatment approaches, expecting outlier firms to justify their position with evidence. Falling short carries the risk of formal enforcement action, remediation costs, and lasting reputational damage.
Immediate Compliance Checkpoints for the Add-On and Renewal Journey
- Test your ICOBS 6A.6 compliance today. Walk through your digital purchase and cancellation journeys for add‑ons and time them. If cancellation requires a phone call while purchase takes two clicks, you are already in breach. Remediate that gap before a compliance audit or consumer complaint triggers an investigation.
- Audit auto‑renewal disclaimers and opt‑out mechanisms. Ensure that pre‑selected boxes, multi‑year lock‑ins, and renewal‑reminder processes meet not only the letter of the Consumer Duty but the principle of genuinely informed choice. Wherever an add‑on is presented as “included” or “recommended,” verify that the customer can remove it as easily as they selected it.
- Review product governance for add‑on bundles under PROD 4. With the FCA actively testing in 2026, firms should document fair‑value assessments for every add‑on, define target markets precisely, and demonstrate that distribution oversight is working. If you are an outlier on pricing or bundling, prepare your evidence now.
- Map the FCA’s testing cycle to your own roadmap. The regulator’s product‑governance tests are ongoing. Align internal compliance assessments with the known areas of focus—pricing, product design, and customer treatment—and ensure that any deviations from market norms are fully documented and capable of withstanding challenge.
Risk & Opportunity Assessment
| Commercial Risk | Medium | Firms that fail to align with FCA expectations on add‑on transparency and cancellation parity face direct compliance costs, remediation orders, and potential fines—eroding profitability and operational bandwidth as testing intensifies in 2026. |
| Competitive Risk | Medium | Brokers and insurers who proactively overhaul their add‑on and auto‑renewal journeys will distinguish themselves with a clearer consumer‑duty record, potentially winning business from those seen as less transparent; laggards risk losing clients and partners. |
| Regulatory Risk | High | The FCA is already actively testing firms on pricing, product governance, and customer treatment (TR24/2 findings). Combined with political pressure from Burnham’s subscription crackdown, the likelihood of enforcement action against non‑compliant add‑on practices is elevated. |
| Reputation Risk | Medium | Consumer‑focused media and campaign groups are primed by the government’s anti‑trap rhetoric; any insurer or broker found with a difficult cancellation process or misleading add‑on bundling risks public naming and erosion of trust. |
| Technology Disruption | Low | The primary risk is process and policy compliance, not technology displacement. However, firms that fail to digitise cancellation flows to match purchase ease will eventually face operational and reputational consequences. |
| Commercial Opportunity | Low | The story does not identify a new revenue stream or market opening; the main opportunity is defensive—by achieving best‑practice transparency now, firms can avoid penalties and strengthen their regulatory standing, but this is more risk mitigation than growth. |
Comments 0