Total:
$0.00
On 6 April 2026 a new statutory duty attached to something every eyewear store already does: replying to a customer complaint. It is section 308 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, and it has been in force for nearly six months. Almost nobody has written about it, because the attention went to the other half of the same chapter — the deadline for dispute-resolution services to get accredited.
That deadline is no longer 5 October 2026. It was moved to 7 January 2027 by an instrument made on 16 September 2026, for a reason that has nothing whatever to do with retail. Almost every page on the internet still says 5 October, including the government-backed guidance for businesses.
The asymmetry is the whole story. The providers have now been given nine months of grace. Traders got none.
This post sets out what section 308 actually requires, why for many stores the honest answer is “nothing” — and the one thing in your own shop policies that can switch the duty on without you noticing.
First, the date that moved — and why it moved
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, S.I. 2026/1040, were made on 16 September 2026 and came into force on 17 September 2026 — the day after they were made. Regulation 1(2), verbatim: “These Regulations come into force on the day after the day on which they are made.”
Regulation 2 does one thing. In regulations 3(3)(b)(i) and (ii) and 4(3)(b)(i) and (ii) of S.I. 2026/284, for “5th October 2026” it substitutes “7th January 2027”. That moves both halves of the transitional test: the date by which an ADR provider must have applied for accreditation, and the date on which the relief runs out.
Now the part worth pausing on. The Explanatory Note gives the reason, and it is not about consumer goods, complaints, or retail:
“The reason for the extension of the transitional period is that it is proposed to amend the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 … to permit the Civil Aviation Authority (“CAA”) … to be appointed as competent authority … The extra time will allow ADR providers in the aviation sector to make their applications to the CAA during the extended transitional period.”
The deadline that governs whether the dispute service named in your terms and conditions is lawfully operating was moved by three months to accommodate the airline industry. The instrument was signed by Kate Dearden, Minister for the Future of Work, on 16 September 2026.
There is a second lesson in this, and it is about sources rather than law. As at 30 September 2026, the government-backed Business Companion guidance on consumer ADR still tells traders that “Traders can refer cases to providers approved under the earlier Regulations until 5 October 2026.” The instrument that changed that date had been in force for a fortnight. The statute book was right and the guidance layer was stale — which is the reverse of what most merchants assume, and the reason this post has been corrected rather than left alone. An earlier version of this post, published on 29 September 2026, gave the deadline as 5 October 2026. That was wrong on the day it was published. The correction is this section.
What came into force, and when
The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026, S.I. 2026/284 (C. 21), made 11 March 2026, brought the following into force on 6 April 2026:
- Chapter 4 (alternative dispute resolution for consumer contract disputes) of Part 4 of the Act — sections 291 to 310;
- Schedule 25 (exempt ADR providers);
- Schedule 26 (accreditation criteria);
- Schedule 27 (consequential amendments etc).
Chapter 4 does two different things to two different groups of people, and it is worth keeping them apart from the start.
To dispute-resolution services, it says: get accredited or stop. Section 293(1), verbatim: “A person must not carry out ADR in relation to a consumer contract dispute unless the person—(a) is an exempt ADR provider whose exemption covers the ADR being carried out, (b) is an accredited ADR provider whose accreditation covers the ADR being carried out, or (c) is acting under special ADR arrangements made by—(i) an exempt ADR provider whose exemption covers the making of those special ADR arrangements, or (ii) an accredited ADR provider whose accreditation covers the making of those special ADR arrangements.”
To traders, it says: when you turn a complaint down, tell the customer what else is available. That is section 308, and it is the provision that reaches an eyewear shop.
Section 308, in its own words
Subsection (1): “This section applies where a trader responds to a complaint from a consumer in respect of any matters relating to a consumer contract between them.”
Subsection (2) makes that deliberately wide. “Matters relating to a consumer contract” include anything concerning (a) the making of the contract, (b) anything done by the trader before or after making the contract, (c) any obligations of the trader under or relating to the contract, or (d) the performance by the trader of its obligations under or relating to the contract.
For a store selling prescription lenses, that is every complaint you receive: the lens came back with the wrong axis, the frame arrived bent, the coating peeled after a month, the pupillary distance was taken from a photo and the finished pair gives headaches, the order was late, the returns policy was not what the customer thought it was.
Subsection (3) is the duty: “The trader must, when communicating the outcome of the trader’s consideration of the complaint to the consumer, also inform the consumer about any ADR or other arrangement that is available if the consumer is dissatisfied with the outcome.”
Subsection (6): “This section does not affect any other duty of a trader to give information to a consumer.”
Read subsection (3) quickly and it looks like a requirement to offer independent dispute resolution. It is not. It is a requirement to disclose one that is available. And what counts as available is defined, narrowly, in subsection (4).
Measure the duty, not the headline
Subsection (4) defines “ADR or other arrangement” as a scheme or arrangement that the trader is obliged to participate in, where that obligation is imposed by one of three things:
- legislation;
- the terms of the consumer contract;
- other contractual arrangements to which the trader is party.
Everything turns on that list. Section 308 does not create an obligation to join an ADR scheme. It creates an obligation to disclose one you are already bound to. If an eyewear retailer is bound to no scheme at all, there is nothing that subsection (3) requires it to point at, and the duty has no content.
Most online eyewear sellers in Great Britain are in exactly that position. There is no general statutory requirement for a spectacles retailer to submit to consumer ADR. So for a great many stores the correct compliance answer to section 308 is: we are bound to no scheme, so there is nothing to disclose.
That reading is not only ours. The government-backed Business Companion guidance puts the same point more bluntly: “Businesses that are not willing to engage in an ADR process do not have to give consumers any information about it.”
That is a finding worth being calm about. It is also the point at which most compliance advice goes wrong in the other direction, because of the third limb.
The limb that catches people: your own terms
Look again at where the obligation can come from. Not just legislation. “The terms of the consumer contract” and “other contractual arrangements to which the trader is party”.
Your own terms and conditions are the terms of the consumer contract. If your returns policy, your complaints page or your checkout terms say that unresolved disputes go to a named mediation service, an ombudsman, a trade-body scheme or “an independent ADR provider”, you have created the obligation yourself — and section 308(3) then requires you to tell the customer about it, in the message where you communicate the outcome of the complaint.
This matters more than it sounds, for a reason specific to how eyewear stores are built. Terms and conditions on a Shopify storefront are very often assembled from a template, a generator, or a previous employer’s wording. Clauses naming an ADR or ombudsman route are common in those templates, because they were standard while the Alternative Dispute Resolution for Consumer Disputes (Competent Authorities and Information) Regulations 2015 were in force and traders were being encouraged to signpost ADR.
So the practical question is not “should we join a scheme”. It is: go and read what your own policy pages already promise. Three outcomes:
- Your terms name no scheme. Section 308 has no content for you. Nothing to do, and nothing to add — adding a route voluntarily creates the duty.
- Your terms name a scheme you really are signed up to. Section 308 applies. Your complaint-outcome messages must mention it.
- Your terms name a scheme you are not actually signed up to, or that no longer operates. This is the worst of the three, and it is common. You have taken on the disclosure duty and you cannot honestly discharge it, and the promise itself is now a misleading statement about the contract.
The third case is also where this connects to the rest of Part 4 of the same Act. The unfair commercial practices chapter that came into force on 6 April 2025 already reaches material information about a contract, and we wrote about that chapter’s reach over online sellers in our post on the repeal of the country-of-origin principle. A dispute-resolution promise you cannot honour is not merely an unmet section 308 duty; it is a statement in your terms that is not true.
The 7 January date, and who it is actually about
Regulation 3 of S.I. 2026/284, as amended by S.I. 2026/1040, is a transitional provision. Here is what it does, precisely.
It disapplies section 293(1) (the prohibition on carrying out ADR without accreditation) and section 294(1) (the prohibition on charging consumers a fee) for a provider that has made an application for accreditation under section 296, where that application is made before 7 January 2027. The relief ends on 7 January 2027, or earlier if the application is granted, refused or withdrawn. Regulation 4 does the equivalent for special ADR arrangements, disapplying section 294(3), and providing for sections 293(2) and 310(5).
One drafting detail matters for anyone mid-dispute, and S.I. 2026/1040 left it untouched. Regulation 3(3)(a) provides that the ADR is to be taken as starting when the consumer contract dispute was first referred to the ADR provider. So the question is when the referral happened, not when the argument began or when a decision lands.
And now the finding that gives this post its title. Neither regulation 3 nor regulation 4 mentions section 308 — and neither did the amendment. There is no transitional relief for the trader duty, and there never has been. It began on 6 April 2026 and has been fully in force ever since, while the providers it points customers towards have now been given nine months to become lawful. When the providers were granted three extra months, nothing was granted to the trader, because there was nothing to extend.
| Provision | Who it binds | In force | Grace period |
|---|---|---|---|
| s.293(1) — no ADR without accreditation | ADR provider | 6 April 2026 | Yes — to 7 January 2027, on application before that date |
| s.293(2) — no special ADR arrangements without accreditation | ADR provider | 6 April 2026 | Yes — reg 4, to 7 January 2027 |
| s.294(1) — no consumer fees | Accredited ADR provider | 6 April 2026 | Yes — reg 3, to 7 January 2027 |
| s.294(3) — no consumer fees under special arrangements | ADR provider | 6 April 2026 | Yes — reg 4, to 7 January 2027 |
| s.308(3) — tell the consumer what is available | Trader | 6 April 2026 | None. Not mentioned in reg 3, reg 4, or the amendment. |
| s.302 — enforcement notices | ADR provider, and trader via s.308(5) | 6 April 2026 | None |
| Schedules 25, 26 and 27 | Providers / consequential | 6 April 2026 | — |
The lesson generalises beyond this instrument, and we are recording it as two rules. First: when you read that a new regime has a transitional period, check whose conduct the transitional provision excuses. A grace period for one side of a relationship is not a grace period for the other, and the party with the duty and no grace period is often the one nobody wrote a press release about. Second, and newly learned the hard way: a transitional date is itself a moving part. Before relying on one, check whether the instrument that set it has been amended — and trust the statute book over the guidance written about it.
What happens if you get it wrong
This is where the story stops being frightening, and it is worth saying plainly because the usual reflex is to reach for the Act’s headline penalties.
Section 308(5), verbatim: “Section 302 (enforcement notices) applies in relation to a trader who is contravening or has contravened the duty under subsection (3) as it applies in relation to an ADR provider who is contravening or has contravened anything mentioned in section 302(1).”
Section 302, on its own terms, is about providers: “The Secretary of State may give an enforcement notice to an ADR provider”, and the things listed in section 302(1) are breaches of sections 293(1) and (2), 294(1) and (3), accreditation conditions, the fee duty in section 299(1), and duties under regulations made under section 303 or directions under section 304. Section 308 is not in that list. It is brought into section 302 from the outside, by section 308(5).
The consequence is that the route against a trader who breaches section 308(3) is an enforcement notice from the Secretary of State, requiring the trader to do or not do specified things, and capable of requiring the trader to give information. It is not the direct-enforcement machinery with turnover-based penalties that gets quoted whenever this Act is mentioned. Whether a section 308 breach can additionally be pursued by any other route is a question we have not resolved, and we are not going to assert either way.
The eyewear-specific part: which scheme, and is it still lawful?
Optical retail is one of the few consumer sectors in Great Britain with a dedicated dispute service, so this is less abstract here than in most trades.
The Optical Consumer Complaints Service appears on the Chartered Trading Standards Institute’s list of ADR bodies. Per CTSI’s listing it is free to both consumer and trader, the procedure is non-binding, the average time to an outcome is around 45 days, and it covers traders established in the United Kingdom in the sectors of health, health services, and medical devices and other physical aids used by patients — the classification that spectacles and contact lenses fall into. The service itself states that it has been delivered by the law firm Nockolds since April 2014.
Retail ADR also appears on the CTSI list, covering general consumer goods, and differs in two ways that matter before you name it in your terms: CTSI’s listing gives an average of around 60 days, a procedure conducted in writing, and an outcome that is binding on consumers and traders. Signposting a binding scheme is a materially different commitment from signposting a non-binding one, and if it is in your terms because a template put it there, that decision was made for you.
Now the caution, and it is the reason this post does not simply tell you to pick one. CTSI has been appointed as Competent Authority by the Secretary of State to accredit ADR providers, and the public listings we could read describe those bodies as “ADR approved” or “authorised” — language from the 2015 regime, which has been superseded. We could not establish from those pages which bodies hold accreditation under section 296 of the 2024 Act. The 2015 Regulations themselves now appear on the statute book marked as revoked, but we were unable to read the revoking instrument or confirm the revocation date, and we are not going to state either from memory.
So the check to run before 7 January 2027 is not “is this body on a list”. It is: ask the scheme directly whether it is accredited under the 2024 Act, or exempt, or acting under special ADR arrangements made by an accredited provider. Those are the only three lawful bases in section 293(1), and a body that has none of them after 7 January 2027 cannot lawfully take your customers’ disputes — while your terms may still be sending them there.
Note also what the amendment implies about the accreditation pipeline. The government extended the window because a competent authority for one sector does not exist yet. That is a reason to ask your scheme where its application stands, rather than to assume the extra three months mean everything is in hand.
A timing coincidence we can measure but not resolve
Section 308 came into force on 6 April 2026. One month and one day later, on 7 May 2026, Britain deleted the country-of-origin principle that had exempted EEA-established online sellers from certain UK rules — the subject of our post on S.I. 2026/407.
The repealed shield covered requirements “regarding the quality or content of the service including those applicable to advertising and contracts”. Whether a duty to disclose a dispute-resolution route when answering a complaint sat inside that description is our own reading of the two provisions, not a proposition any source states, and we flag it as such. If it did, an EEA-established seller had a one-month window in which section 308 was arguably not enforceable against it, closing on 7 May 2026. We are recording the dates because they are verifiable. We are not asserting the consequence, and no merchant should plan around it.
Separately, we have not established the territorial reach of section 308 itself. The chapter defines a consumer contract by reference to the Consumer Rights Act 2015, and we have not worked through how that applies to a seller established outside the United Kingdom. If your store is not UK-established, treat that as an open question and take advice, rather than reading this post as a conclusion.
What this does not touch
Nothing in Chapter 4 says anything about frames, lenses, cases or packaging. It is a rule about the shopfront — your terms, your complaint handling, your outbound messages. The goods side of selling eyewear into Britain and Europe is a different set of instruments entirely, and we have covered it separately in the UK product safety framework post and in the post on eyewear as PPE and as a medical device in Europe. Do not relabel anything on account of section 308.
It is also worth distinguishing this from the mandatory consumer notice Europe introduced on 27 September, which is a piece of text you must display before the sale. That is the subject of our post on the new EU guarantee notice. Section 308 is the opposite shape: nothing to display up front, a disclosure owed at the moment you say no. And the duty attached to your import paperwork is a third thing again, covered in the post on UK low-value import relief.
What to do this week
- Search your own site for the strings ADR, ombudsman, mediation, arbitration, dispute resolution and independent third party. Check the terms and conditions, returns policy, complaints page, FAQ, and any PDF or email template. This is the single step that determines whether section 308 has any content for you.
- If you find a named scheme, establish whether you are actually a member or subscriber. Being named in your terms is what creates the duty; whether the membership exists determines whether you can discharge it.
- If you are a member, ask the scheme in writing whether it is accredited under section 296 of the 2024 Act, exempt, or acting under special ADR arrangements made by an accredited provider. The transitional relief now runs to 7 January 2027, so you have longer than the internet says — but the question is the same one.
- If you find a named scheme you are not signed up to, or that has closed, fix the wording rather than quietly joining a scheme to make the sentence true. Removing an inaccurate promise is usually the smaller change.
- If and only if a scheme genuinely applies to you, add a line to your complaint-outcome template. The duty bites in the message that communicates the outcome, so it belongs in the template, not only on a policy page.
- Do not add an ADR route in order to look compliant. Naming one creates a duty you did not have. That is a commercial decision about dispute costs and binding outcomes, not a compliance quick win.
- Keep a dated note of what you checked and what you found. The enforcement route here is a notice that can require you to provide information; a contemporaneous record is the cheap form of that.
- When you write a compliance date in your calendar, write the instrument number next to it. Dates in this area are set by amendable secondary legislation, and this one moved by three months with no publicity at all.
Frequently asked questions
Has the ADR accreditation deadline changed?
Yes. S.I. 2026/1040, made 16 September 2026 and in force from 17 September 2026, substituted 7 January 2027 for 5 October 2026 in regulations 3(3)(b) and 4(3)(b) of S.I. 2026/284. A great deal of published guidance, including the government-backed Business Companion pages, still gave 5 October as at 30 September 2026.
Why was it extended?
The Explanatory Note says it is because the Act is to be amended so the Civil Aviation Authority can be appointed as a competent authority, and the extra time lets aviation-sector ADR providers apply to the CAA. Nothing in the stated reason concerns retail or consumer goods.
Does section 308 mean my store has to offer independent dispute resolution?
No. The duty in subsection (3) is to inform the consumer about an arrangement “that is available”, and subsection (4) confines that to a scheme the trader is obliged to participate in by legislation, by the terms of the consumer contract, or by other contractual arrangements. If you are bound to none, there is nothing to disclose.
When exactly does the duty bite?
When you communicate the outcome of your consideration of the complaint. Not at the point of sale, and not when you acknowledge receipt.
What if my terms and conditions mention an ADR scheme but I never signed up?
Then you have created the obligation in your own contract terms and cannot discharge it honestly. Read the clause, decide whether you meant it, and change the wording or join the scheme. A promise in your terms that is not true is a separate problem from section 308.
Is 7 January 2027 a deadline for me?
Not directly. It is the end of the transitional relief for ADR providers that apply for accreditation before that date. It matters to you only if your terms point customers at a provider — because after that date the provider needs accreditation, an exemption, or special ADR arrangements with an accredited provider.
Did my section 308 duty have a grace period too?
No. Regulations 3 and 4 of S.I. 2026/284 do not mention section 308, and neither did the amendment that extended them. The duty has been in force since 6 April 2026.
Who enforces it, and what is the penalty?
Section 308(5) extends section 302 to traders, so the route is an enforcement notice from the Secretary of State requiring the trader to do or not do specified things. Section 308 is not among the provisions listed in section 302(1) itself. Whether any other enforcement route is available is something we have not resolved.
Is the Optical Consumer Complaints Service the right scheme for an online eyewear store?
CTSI’s listing has it covering UK-established traders in health, health services and medical devices and other physical aids used by patients, free to both sides, with a non-binding outcome in around 45 days. Whether it will take your particular business is a question for the service, not for us — and whether it holds accreditation under the 2024 Act is something we could not establish from the public pages.
Are the old 2015 ADR Regulations still in force?
They appear on the statute book marked as revoked. We could not read the revoking instrument or confirm the revocation date in preparing this post, so we are not stating either.
Does any of this change how I label or describe my frames and lenses?
No. Chapter 4 is about complaint handling and contract terms. It says nothing about goods.
How many instruments make up this regime?
More than one, which is the usual trap — and the count has gone up. Alongside the Commencement No. 3 Regulations, S.I. 2026/284, and the amending instrument S.I. 2026/1040, there are DMCCA 2024 alternative dispute resolution instruments dealing with consequential amendments, fees and information, and a conferral of functions on the Chartered Trading Standards Institute. If you are advising on this, read the cluster rather than the commencement instrument alone.
This post is general information about legislation affecting eyewear retailers, not legal advice. It describes our reading of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, S.I. 2026/284 and S.I. 2026/1040 as at 30 September 2026. It was corrected on 30 September 2026: the version published on 29 September 2026 gave the transitional deadline as 5 October 2026, which had already been changed to 7 January 2027 by an instrument in force from 17 September 2026. Several points remain expressly unresolved: the revoking instrument and date for the 2015 ADR Regulations; which bodies hold accreditation under section 296; the territorial reach of section 308; whether any enforcement route other than a section 302 notice is available; and whether an ADR disclosure duty fell within the repealed country-of-origin coordinated field, which is our own reading and not a proposition supported by any source. VisioncarePro makes no statement about its own compliance status. Take advice on your own terms and complaint handling before relying on anything here.
Sources: Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024, Part 4 Chapter 4, sections 291 to 310, and sections 293, 294, 302 and 308 in particular, legislation.gov.uk — The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) Regulations 2026, S.I. 2026/284 (C. 21), made version, regulations 2, 3 and 4, legislation.gov.uk — The Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 (Commencement No. 3 and Transitional Provisions) (Amendment) Regulations 2026, S.I. 2026/1040, made 16 September 2026, regulations 1 and 2 and the Explanatory Note, legislation.gov.uk — Business Companion, Alternative dispute resolution, consumer guidance, read 30 September 2026 — Chartered Trading Standards Institute, ADR accreditation and ADR body listings, including the Optical Consumer Complaints Service and Retail ADR — Optical Consumer Complaints Service, About Us — Osborne Clarke, UK Regulatory Outlook, consumer law, 26 March 2026.
