The competition regulator says Aldi and Lidl raised no objection to new supermarket land rules. Its own case file holds Aldi's objection from months earlier, overruled by recounting its own SKUs as roughly double the number.
Estimated reading time: 7 minutes
.jpg){kind=link}
In short. On 22 October 2026 the Competition and Markets Authority designated Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI as "Large Grocery Retailers" under the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010, bringing them under the same land-agreement rules as the UK's seven biggest supermarket chains [1]. The release says Morrisons, Waitrose and Iceland supported the move and that "the CMA did not receive representations from Aldi, Lidl GB or Lidl NI." The CMA's own case page holds a detailed Aldi submission from earlier in the same case, disputing the core "full range of groceries" criterion on SKU-count grounds; the CMA's own final decisions report concedes Aldi and Lidl have fewer SKUs than existing designated retailers, then recounts that figure under a different method to roughly double it [2] [3]. The same report admits it has not assessed how many of Aldi and Lidl's existing land agreements actually contain the restrictions the Order targets. Three documented mistakes: four stars.
Ten retailers are now bound by a rule that was written for seven. On 22 October 2026 the Competition and Markets Authority announced that Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI will be designated "Large Grocery Retailers" under the Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010, the rule that stops the biggest supermarket chains from using restrictive land agreements to keep rivals from opening nearby [1]. The release's framing is of a settled, uncontroversial process: three retailers wrote in to support it, and the three companies it actually designates stayed silent. Read against the CMA's own case file, published alongside the same decision, the silence is one stage of a two-stage process, and the stage before it holds a detailed Aldi objection the release never mentions.
The claims, tested
| The document's own words | What the public record shows | Verdict |
|---|---|---|
| "The CMA did not receive representations from Aldi, Lidl GB or Lidl NI" opposing the designation; Morrisons, Waitrose and Iceland "submitted their views, and all supported the CMA's proposal" [1] | The CMA's own final decisions report: "each of Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI notified the CMA that they did not intend to provide representations on the Provisional Decisions Report" (para 5.2, page 54) [2], a statement about the later consultation only. Earlier in the same case, under the CMA's own "Responses to invitation to comment" heading, sits a detailed Aldi submission opposing the designation on the merits [3] | True as narrowly stated; the release names every retailer that supported the proposal and omits the one that formally objected, at an earlier stage of the identical case |
| Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI now carry "a full range of 'Groceries' for sale at the retail level" (para 1.9(b), page 7) [2] | Aldi's own submission: "The Aldi Core Range is 2,005 products, representing approximately 7-10% of the 20,000 to 30,000 SKUs typically offered by Large Grocery Retailers" (page 1) [3]. The CMA's own report records the identical figure, then recalculates it: Aldi "reported having [2,000-3,000] total products... but when splitting out variants had [4,000-5,000] SKUs" (para 4.10, footnote 80, page 25) [2] | Same underlying stock, counted two ways; the CMA elsewhere concedes a "lower overall stock keeping unit (SKU) count than existing LGRs" (para 1.8, page 7) even as it designates them |
| The decision "will help level the playing field" in a market "worth an estimated £222.7 billion" [1] | The same final decisions report: evidence from Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI themselves in 2025 "indicated that a proportion of each of their land agreements contained the type of restrictions which could be subject to the Order. The CMA has not conducted a detailed assessment of these agreements" (para 1.5, page 6) [2]. The £222.7 billion figure carries no source; the provisional release three months earlier cited £215 billion to IBISWorld [4] | The practical scale of the change, how many existing agreements actually restrict competitors, is unassessed; the headline market statistic moved by £7.7 billion between releases with no explanation given for either figure |
The mistakes, counted
The release's account of the consultation reads as unanimous, and it is not (1). "Interested parties including Morrisons, Waitrose and Iceland submitted their views, and all supported the CMA's proposal. The CMA did not receive representations from Aldi, Lidl GB or Lidl NI," the release says [1]. That sentence describes one round of a two-round process. The CMA's own final decisions report sets out the earlier round: a public Invitation to Comment, under section 174 of the Enterprise Act 2002, that directly asked "Do Aldi and Lidl offer a range of Groceries that is significantly more limited than that offered by the Large Grocery Retailers?" [3]. Aldi answered at length, arguing its core range is "7-10% of the 20,000 to 30,000 SKUs typically offered by Large Grocery Retailers" and that it does "not believe that Aldi being out of the scope of the Order has any detrimental impact on competition, or to consumers" [3]. Having made that case once, Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI "notified the CMA that they did not intend to provide representations" when the provisional decision went out for comment a second time, and "did not wish to take up the offer of a meeting" (para 5.2, page 54) [2]. A reader of the release alone would have no way to know a formal objection exists in the CMA's own files.
The designation rests on a recount, not a change of business (2). The final decisions report concedes, in its own summary, that Aldi and Lidl have a "lower overall stock keeping unit (SKU) count than existing LGRs" (para 1.8, page 7) [2]. It designates them anyway, in part by changing how that count is taken. Aldi counts a multi-flavour case, up to four variants sharing the same case code, brand and price, as a single SKU; on that basis it reports roughly 2,000 core products and up to 2,703 including seasonal and trial lines [3]. The CMA's report records that "the CMA has treated a SKU as a distinct product variant" instead, "as this better reflects the range available to consumers" (para 4.9, page 25), and that under this method Aldi's reported [2,000-3,000] products become [4,000-5,000] SKUs (para 4.10, footnote 80, page 25) [2]. Aldi's own submission addresses this directly: "Our business model has remained consistent since the Order was made in 2010... The Order's definition is based on range and price, not market share" [3]. The CMA's final decision agrees the stock has not grown to match a large grocery retailer's; it designates Aldi on the strength of a different way of counting the same stock, alongside separate findings on store footprint, procurement and competitive effect that the release does not break out individually.
The practical bite of the designation is not quantified, and the headline market figure moved without explanation (3). The release's framing promises the decision "will help level the playing field" in a market "worth an estimated £222.7 billion" [1]; the provisional release three months earlier cited a different figure, £215 billion, sourced to IBISWorld [4]. The final release gives no source for its own larger number. More materially, the final decisions report records that Aldi, Lidl GB and Lidl NI themselves supplied evidence in 2025 that "a proportion of each of their land agreements contained the type of restrictions which could be subject to the Order," and adds: "The CMA has not conducted a detailed assessment of these agreements by reference to the Order" (para 1.5, page 6) [2]. Designation only bars prohibited restrictions in new land agreements outright; existing agreements are reviewed "on the request of interested landowners, developers, and rival supermarkets" [1], not automatically. How many of Aldi and Lidl's current site agreements actually contain the restrictions the Order exists to remove is, on the regulator's own account, not yet known.
Credit where due
Every figure and admission above comes from documents the CMA itself published, most of them alongside the decision it is making, not extracted from an archive the department would rather forget existed. The final decisions report states the conceded SKU gap and the unassessed-agreements point in its own words, in its own summary section, rather than burying them deep in an appendix [2]. Aldi's objection is not suppressed; it sits in plain sight on the CMA's own case page, under a clearly labelled heading, for anyone who reads past the press release [3]. And the underlying case for the designation itself has real evidence behind it: existing large retailers' own submissions that they benchmark against and price-match Aldi and Lidl is a genuine finding, not an assertion.
Verdict
Four stars, from three documented mistakes. The CMA may well have the right answer: a discount chain with over 1,000 stores and a price-matching war with the supermarkets it undercuts is a reasonable candidate for rules designed to stop land-banking by dominant retailers. What the release does not do is show its working. It describes a process with no opposition, when the CMA's own file holds a substantive one; it rests the key finding on a count that the regulator's own numbers show is a convention, not a change in what Aldi actually stocks; and it promises a levelled playing field without saying how many of the agreements it is meant to level have even been looked at.
The star score counts three documented mistakes. First, the release's "no representations" framing is accurate only for the later of two consultation rounds and omits that Aldi filed a detailed objection, on the merits, at the earlier Invitation to Comment stage, which does not appear in the release at all. Second, the release does not disclose that the "full range of groceries" finding rests partly on counting Aldi's stock under a different method from Aldi's own, roughly doubling the reported figure, even as the CMA's own report concedes Aldi and Lidl have fewer SKUs than existing designated retailers by either count. Third, the release does not disclose that the CMA has not assessed how many of Aldi and Lidl's existing land agreements actually contain the restrictions the Order targets, despite the companies' own 2025 evidence that some do, and its headline £222.7 billion market figure is unsourced and differs from the £215 billion the CMA itself cited three months earlier. Three falls in the 1 to 3 band: four stars; the bands are on the ratings page. This piece makes no finding about the conduct of any named individual; the drafting of a press release and a final decisions report is an institutional process. Checked directly against the final decision, the final decisions report, Aldi's own submission and the provisional release, all fetched 27 October 2026.
Sources
- Aldi and Lidl will be subject to same rules as major supermarkets, Competition and Markets Authority, published 22 October 2026
- Final decisions report: Groceries Market Investigation (Controlled Land) Order 2010 - assessment of Aldi Stores Limited, Lidl Great Britain Limited and Lidl Northern Ireland Limited, Competition and Markets Authority, published 22 October 2026
- Aldi Stores Limited's response to the CMA's Invitation to Comment, published via the CMA case page
- Aldi and Lidl should be subject to the same rules as major supermarkets, Competition and Markets Authority, published 7 August 2026