Practitioners and consumer advocates are warning that a recent relaxation of disclosure rules by the Competition and Markets Authority (CMA) could leave pet owners unwittingly paying more for veterinary care. Investigations reveal that large corporate chains now command prices roughly 16 % above those of independent practices, a disparity that critics argue is exacerbated by the ability of multinational owners to hide behind familiar brand names.
Investigation uncovers price gap between corporate and independent vets
A detailed study commissioned by the CMA found that the average cost of a consultation at a large vet group is 16.6 % higher than at a locally owned clinic. The research, which examined thousands of invoices across England and Wales, also highlighted that more than 60 % of all veterinary practices are now owned, wholly or partially, by just six organisations. These include the pharmacy retailer CVS, the pet supplies chain Pets at Home, Medivet, IVC, VetPartners and Linnaeus, whose parent is Mars Petcare, a subsidiary of the US confectionery giant Mars.
The figures have prompted renewed calls for transparency. “Pet owners deserve to know who really controls their vet,” said Dr Iain McGill, a director of the Progressive Veterinary Association (PVA). “When they think they are using a local practice, they are often dealing with a multinational conglomerate that is answerable to shareholders, not to the community.”
New rules aim for clarity but face legal challenge
In response to concerns over market dominance, the CMA issued a white paper earlier this year proposing tighter controls. Among other measures, the paper suggested capping the cost of pet medication prescriptions at £21 and requiring clearer ownership disclosures. However, the final wording has been softened, replacing the term “corporate vet group” with “network or group”. This change allows practices to list a brand name or the original independent practice’s name, rather than the parent conglomerate.
The PVA has taken the CMA to court, arguing that the revised language enables large corporations to obscure their ultimate control. In a submission to the regulator, the association contended that “the suggestion that accurate corporate ownership information may provide no meaningful benefit to pet owners rather underestimates the intelligence of the average pet owner.” They claim that without full disclosure, pet owners cannot make informed choices, which in turn reduces competition and drives up prices.
The CMA maintains that its approach reflects extensive consultation with both large and small practices, as well as consumer groups. A spokesperson said: “It is critical that pet owners know whether their local practice is part of a national group or locally owned, and we are confident the changes we are making will achieve this. In future, all practices will have to make ownership links clear by using brand names that people recognise on signs and online.”
Political pressure mounts as MPs weigh in
The debate has spilled into the political arena, with shadow health secretary Andy Burnham calling for stronger protections for small, British‑owned businesses. In a recent interview, Burnham warned that “foreign private equity firms and corporate investors are squeezing out local practices, leaving pet owners with fewer affordable options.” He urged the government to side with independent vets and to ensure that any new regulations do not inadvertently shield large owners from scrutiny.
Meanwhile, the PVA’s legal challenge is expected to be heard in the High Court later this autumn. If successful, it could force the CMA to revert to more stringent disclosure requirements, potentially reshaping the ownership landscape of the £6.3 billion veterinary market.
Why it Matters
The outcome of this legal and regulatory tussle will have far‑reaching consequences for millions of pet owners across the UK. Clear ownership information empowers consumers to choose services that align with their values and budgets, fostering a competitive market that drives innovation and affordability. If large corporations can continue to mask their control behind familiar brand names, the risk of price inflation and reduced choice will persist, undermining trust in the veterinary sector. This issue also highlights a broader concern about the influence of private equity in essential services, raising questions about how regulators can balance market efficiency with the public’s right to transparent, locally accountable care. The court’s decision will set a precedent that could shape not only veterinary ownership but also future regulatory approaches to corporate disclosure in other professional services.
