What UK agents must disclose when a listing photo is digitally altered

Part 4, Chapter 1 of the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 came into force on 6 April 2025 and repealed the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008, the regime almost every published guide to UK property marketing was written against. What replaces them opens with one line. Section 225(1) reads, in full: “Unfair commercial practices are prohibited.” DMCC Act 2024, s.225 (prohibition of unfair commercial practices)

The same day, the National Trading Standards Estate and Letting Agency Team withdrew its Material Information guidance, Parts A, B and C, the documents UK agents had been working to since 2022. Propertymark records the reason plainly: Part 4 of the DMCC Act “has now come into force, repealing the CPRs, the original foundation on which NTSELAT's material information framework was built.” Propertymark, "Material information guidance withdrawn"

Nathan Emerson, Propertymark's chief executive, objected to how it was handled, describing guidance superseded “in less than two years and with limited sector guidance for both consumers and practitioners.” Propertymark, "Material information guidance withdrawn"

So the sector is a year and a half into a regime much of its own reference material does not describe. A Rightmove listing photo guide dated 2026 names the DMCC Act for enforcement in one section and, in another, still tells agents that a misleading action or omission about size, layout or condition is an offence under the Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008. Those regulations no longer exist, and a compliance note written against them is a note against nothing. a 2026 Rightmove photo guide still citing the repealed regulations

A commercial practice is a misleading action under section 226(1) if it gives false or misleading information about a product, or presents information in an overall way that is “likely to deceive the average consumer”, and on either route causes that consumer to take a decision they would not otherwise have taken. DMCC Act 2024, s.226 (misleading actions)

A photograph is information. The Trading Standards-backed guidance on property descriptions says so without hedging: “A photograph can be misleading. Do not doctor photos or use extreme lenses that affect the perspective of the image.” That guide was last updated in October 2025 and names Part 4 of the DMCC Act as the controlling law, which makes it the closest thing UK agents currently have to an official position on listing images. Business Companion, "Property descriptions: sale or let"

The line that matters is not between edited and unedited. It runs between an edit that changes how the property looks and an edit that changes what the property is. Furniture placed in an empty room does the first. A chimney breast painted out of a wall does the second, and the second puts false information about the property in front of a buyer whether or not anyone ever notices.

Section 225(4) sets out three separate ways a practice can be unfair, and they are not equally hard to prove. Limb (a) covers misleading actions and misleading omissions, and it requires showing the practice was likely to cause the average consumer to take a different transactional decision. Limb (b) covers omitting material information from an invitation to purchase, and it carries no such test at all. DMCC Act 2024, s.225 (prohibition of unfair commercial practices)

An invitation to purchase is defined at section 230(10) as a practice providing information “which indicates the characteristics of a product and its price” and “which enables ... the consumer to decide whether to purchase”. A portal listing with photographs and an asking price is the textbook example of one. Section 230(2) then lists what has to be given in an invitation to purchase, beginning with the main characteristics of the product. DMCC Act 2024, s.230 (invitations to purchase)

Whether "this photograph has been altered" belongs to the main characteristics of the property is an interpretation rather than settled law, and no UK court has ruled on it for a listing image. But it is the argument an enforcer would make, and it is a far shorter argument than the one under limb (a), because the agent does not get to say the buyer would have booked the viewing anyway.

Section 227 fills in what omitting means. Material information is information “the average consumer needs to take an informed transactional decision”, and under section 227(4) omitting it includes presenting it “in a way that is unclear or untimely, or in such a way that the consumer is unlikely to see it.” DMCC Act 2024, s.227 (misleading omissions)

In June 2026 Property Industry Eye reported on a flat in Tooting, south-west London, where a prospective buyer found the property looked materially different from its listing photographs. The agency said soft furnishings, lights and furniture had been added digitally. One image also had a chimney breast removed. Property Industry Eye, 2 June 2026

The listing did carry a disclosure. The online version said some photographs had been enhanced using AI. In the property's PDF brochure the same statement was set in white text on a white background: present in the file, and findable only by searching the PDF's text. Property Industry Eye, 2 June 2026

That is section 227(4) described almost word for word. The information was not missing. It was presented in such a way that the consumer was unlikely to see it, which the Act treats as an omission rather than as compliance. It is the most useful thing about the case for anyone else: the question a UK agent has to answer is not whether a disclosure exists but whether a buyer would read it. DMCC Act 2024, s.227 (misleading omissions)

Nathan Emerson set the trade position afterwards: “Any images created or altered using AI must be clearly labelled so consumers understand what they are viewing.” Paul Offley, compliance officer at The Guild of Property Professionals, put the same point from the buyer's side: “Consumers should not be misled into believing that digitally altered images accurately reflect a property's current state.” Property Industry Eye, 2 June 2026

Neither Rightmove nor Zoopla publishes a policy on AI-altered or virtually staged images that could be found in September 2026. Their public guidance for agents covers resolution, image counts, floorplan placement and copyright. If either operates an internal rule on digital alteration, it is not written anywhere a buyer or a newly qualified agent can read it, which is worth knowing before treating portal acceptance as a sign of compliance.

The ASA's CAP Code does apply, and it is written for exactly this problem. Rule 3.1: “Marketing communications must not materially mislead or be likely to do so.” Rule 3.9 adds that they “must not mislead by omitting significant limitations and qualifications”, and rule 3.10 that “Qualifications must not mislead by not being presented clearly”, which is the white-text-on-white problem again in advertising language. CAP Code, section 3 (misleading advertising)

Rule 3.7 is the one with a filing consequence. Before publication, marketers “must hold documentary evidence to prove claims that consumers are likely to regard as objective and that are capable of objective substantiation.” For a listing photograph, the documentary evidence is the unedited original frame. Keeping it is not a courtesy to the buyer; it is the only thing that answers a challenge. CAP Code, section 3 (misleading advertising)

The enforcement change is bigger than the drafting change. Until April 2025, consumer law against a UK agent ran through the courts. The CMA can now find an infringement and impose the penalty itself, which, as DLA Piper put it, “will bring its consumer law enforcement powers in line with its current competition law powers.” DLA Piper on the CMA's direct enforcement regime

The ceiling sits in section 182(6). Where the CMA issues a final infringement notice, a monetary penalty must be “a fixed amount not exceeding £300,000 or, if higher, 10% of the total value of the turnover (if any) of the respondent.” For an independent agency the fixed sum is the operative number; for a national chain the percentage is. DMCC Act 2024, s.182 (final infringement notice)

Two smaller tiers sit behind it. Breaching an undertaking the CMA has already accepted, or a direction it has already given, carries a fixed amount of £150,000 or 5% of turnover, whichever is higher, plus a daily rate on top for as long as the breach runs. DMCC Act 2024, s.190 (penalties for breach of undertakings)

Giving the CMA false or misleading information during an investigation is its own penalty, at £30,000 or 1% of turnover, whichever is higher. It is the tier an agent is most likely to reach by accident, by answering a question about an image from memory rather than from the file. DMCC Act 2024, s.198 (penalties for false or misleading information)

Proportion matters here. Early enforcement under the new regime has been aimed at the more egregious end, and a single unlabelled staged photograph is not what the regulator is hunting. What changed is that the exposure is now direct, and starting it no longer requires anyone to go to court. DLA Piper on the CMA's direct enforcement regime

Propertymark's FAQ on the commencement regulations tells agents to review their commercial practices against the new rules, and lists advertising and material information among the areas affected. It sets no rule for photographs, and it points members at CMA guidance rather than writing its own. Propertymark DMCC commencement FAQ

That is the honest summary of the UK position in September 2026. Two trade bodies have said clearly that AI-altered images must be labelled. Neither has said what the label should read, where it should sit, or what happens if it is missing. A UK agent is applying a general prohibition to a specific photograph on their own, which is why the placement question in the Tooting case matters more than any wording question.