Summary

  • SI 2026/1075 makes UK telecom supply continuity a specified public-interest consideration in merger cases, naming public services, critical national infrastructure and potentially vulnerable customers.
  • A related power to write continuity requirements into certain enforcement orders has a narrow trigger: the intervention notice must name this consideration, and it must still matter when the order is made.

Britain’s merger law now has a telecom-continuity switch. It is not wired to every network fault or every takeover. It sits in the Enterprise Act’s public-interest machinery, where a minister can ask whether a transaction threatens continuity of phone and broadband supply to the UK economy and society.

The switch arrived in the Enterprise Act 2002 (Specification of Additional Section 58 Consideration) Order 2026, SI 2026/1075. Made at 4:07pm and laid before Parliament at 5:15pm on 12 October, the instrument came into force the next day. Article 2 inserted section 58(2EA): the need to maintain continuity of telecommunications services to prevent disruption, including disruption to public services, critical national infrastructure and supply to customers who are or may be vulnerable. The order extends across England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.

The timing tracks the TalkTalk transaction. On 5 October, the Secretary of State issued a public-interest intervention notice concerning BT Group’s completed acquisition of TalkTalk’s business. The notice relied on the existing public-health-emergency consideration and said telecom continuity ought to be added to section 58. At that point, it was a proposed consideration. The order made it specified on 13 October. The CMA delivered its report on the transaction to the Secretary of State on 19 October; its published case page still labels the inquiry Open.

That sequence creates a legal route, not an automatic service guarantee. New Schedule 8 paragraph 20BB lets certain merger enforcement orders include provisions the decision-maker considers appropriate to maintain telecom continuity. It expressly permits requirements to do or not do particular things. But its address book is short: the order must fall under Schedule 7 paragraph 5, 10 or 11; it must follow an intervention notice that mentions section 58(2EA); and that consideration must remain relevant. Paragraph 20BB says it applies for that purpose only, not as a general power under other parts of the Act or other enactments.

Those conditions matter. Section 58(2EA) gives continuity a named place in public-interest merger analysis. Paragraph 20BB supplies a way to translate that consideration into terms of a qualifying enforcement order. The first is a factor the minister may consider; the second is a tool that can be used when the statutory route and continuing relevance are present. Neither clause writes a standing uptime rule for telecom companies. The order text does not prescribe an outage threshold, a minimum service level or a standard reporting schedule.

The distinction also separates two questions that headlines often mash together. Competition review asks what the completed acquisition does to competition. The public-interest route asks whether it operates, or may be expected to operate, against the specified public interests and merits referral for further assessment. The CMA’s report covers competition analysis and advice relevant to that decision; the new continuity consideration gives the minister another statutory lens.

Sources