UK and Ireland Ecommerce Trade News

Online Retail News

Independent trade news for UK and Ireland online retail professionals.

Learn More

UK and Ireland Ecommerce Trade News

Online Retail News

UK and Ireland Ecommerce Trade News

Featured

Strategic Insight

About Online Retail News

Built for UK & Irish Ecommerce

Online Retail News provides independent trade coverage for professionals across the UK and Ireland ecommerce sector. It focuses on the platform, fulfilment, payments, and marketplace decisions that directly affect how online retailers operate and scale.

Coverage is grounded in verifiable data, regulatory sources, and real operational insight rather than vendor-led narratives. The aim is to support better commercial decision-making across ecommerce businesses.

Our contributors include journalists, ecommerce professionals, and sector specialists with direct experience. Every article is written with a clear focus on practical relevance, accuracy, and transparency.

Explore Coverage

Business Insights for the European Market

News, Analysis and Practical Guidance for European Business Community

Sustainable Ecommerce Practices

In brief: From the 2026-2027 scheme year, the UK’s Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for packaging moved from flat-rate fees to fees that are eco-modulated by recyclability. Packaging rated Red under the government’s Recyclability Assessment Methodology now costs 1.2 times the base rate, rising to 1.6 times in 2027-2028 and 2.0 times in 2028-2029, while Green-rated packaging currently attracts roughly a 9% discount. The scheme covers online marketplace operators enabling sales into the UK as well as direct retailers, which makes packaging choice a direct and escalating cost line rather than a soft sustainability commitment.

Sustainable ecommerce practices in the UK moved from a reputational consideration to a quantified cost line in 2026, when the government’s packaging fee system began actually charging different rates based on how recyclable a retailer’s packaging is. This isn’t a future proposal; it’s the fee structure that applies from the current scheme year, with the financial gap between recyclable and hard-to-recycle packaging set to widen automatically over the next three years regardless of any further policy change.

UK Packaging Fees Now Reward Recyclable Materials Directly

The Extended Producer Responsibility (EPR) scheme for packaging, established under the Producer Responsibility Obligations (Packaging and Packaging Waste) Regulations 2024, has required obligated businesses to report their packaging data since 2024, with the first fee invoices issued from October 2025 based on 2024 tonnages. From the 2026-2027 scheme year onward, those fees stopped being a single flat rate per material and started being eco-modulated according to the government’s Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM), which rates all in-scope packaging as Red, Amber, or Green, part of the same wider push toward regulatory tightening UK retailers have faced through 2026.

The scheme administrator, PackUK, has set the modulation on an escalating scale. Packaging rated Red, meaning not currently recyclable at scale, costs 1.2 times the Amber base rate for 2026-2027, rising to 1.6 times in 2027-2028 and 2.0 times in 2028-2029. Green-rated packaging, the most recyclable category, currently attracts an estimated 9% discount against the Amber rate, though PackUK has said this Green discount figure is illustrative and calculated from current RAM data rather than fixed permanently. Crucially, modulation doesn’t increase the total fees collected across the scheme; it reallocates the existing cost burden toward harder-to-recycle materials and away from more recyclable ones.

Who the New Fees Actually Apply To

The scheme applies to organisations with an annual turnover of £1 million or more that handle over 25 tonnes of packaging a year, covering primary, secondary, tertiary, and shipment packaging, including reusable and hireable packaging. Brand owners, importers of packaged goods, and businesses that pack or fill products under their own brand are all in scope as obligated producers.

The detail that matters most for this site’s audience is that online marketplace operators enabling international sales into the UK are explicitly included in scope alongside direct retailers, which means a business selling through a marketplace doesn’t automatically sit outside the fee system just because a third-party platform handles the sale. Retailers using multiple fulfilment routes, their own site, a marketplace, or a mix of both, need to establish which entity in that chain is the obligated producer for each packaging type they use, rather than assuming responsibility sits entirely with whichever platform processes the transaction.

What This Means for Ecommerce Packaging Decisions

The practical implication of eco-modulation is that a packaging choice a retailer might previously have made purely on cost or protective performance now carries an additional, quantified, and growing financial consequence tied specifically to recyclability. A retailer using Red-rated packaging in 2026-2027 is already paying 20% more than the base rate for that material, and that multiplier is scheduled to reach double the base rate by 2028-2029 without any further legislative change required to make it happen.

Getting a RAM rating checked for current packaging, rather than assuming a material is “recyclable” in a general sense, is worth doing directly, since the RAM assessment is specific about what counts as recyclable at scale under the scheme’s methodology rather than what’s theoretically recyclable somewhere in principle. Retailers reviewing packaging redesigns should weigh the modulated fee saving against material cost and protective performance together, since a cheaper but Red-rated material may cost more overall once the escalating fee multiplier is factored in over a multi-year horizon, particularly by the time the 2.0x rate applies in 2028-2029.

Reporting and Compliance Steps Retailers Need Now

Obligated producers need to register with PackUK, either directly or through a recognised compliance scheme, and submit packaging data covering the materials, weights, and recyclability of everything they place on the market. Reporting periods align with the calendar year, and the environmental regulators, the Environment Agency and its devolved equivalents, audit reported data rather than simply accepting self-reported figures at face value, which makes accurate record-keeping a genuine compliance requirement rather than a formality.

The invoicing timeline is worth understanding clearly, since it lags the reporting period it’s based on. Fees for a given scheme year are calculated from packaging data reported for the previous year’s tonnages, and the first invoices reflecting the new modulated rates are expected in the second half of 2026, covering packaging placed on the market in 2025. A retailer that hasn’t yet reviewed its current packaging against RAM ratings has a narrowing window to make design changes before those changes show up in a future year’s modulated fee bill, since redesigning packaging now affects 2026 tonnage data, which in turn affects fees invoiced later.

Small producers, defined by turnover and packaging volume thresholds below the main scheme’s £1 million and 25 tonne cut-offs, face reduced obligations but still need to report packaging data to remain compliant, so smaller ecommerce retailers shouldn’t assume they sit entirely outside the scheme without checking their specific figures against the current thresholds.

Returns Remain the Other Major Sustainability Cost

Packaging fees aren’t the only sustainability-linked cost UK ecommerce retailers are dealing with. Returns handling carries its own environmental footprint, through reverse logistics transport, the packaging used for returns specifically, and the disposal or write-off of stock that can’t be resold at full price, and that footprint sits alongside the direct financial cost of returns discussed in this site’s fulfilment and logistics coverage. Packaging decisions and returns handling aren’t entirely separate problems either: packaging that protects an item well enough to prevent damage-driven returns reduces both the environmental cost of a wasted item and the reverse-logistics cost of processing an avoidable return.

Retailers reviewing packaging for EPR fee reasons have a natural opportunity to review it for returns-reduction reasons at the same time, since better-fitting or better-protective packaging can lower both the modulated fee exposure, if it moves a material toward a Green rating, and the rate of damage-related returns, without treating the two reviews as competing priorities. Both reviews ultimately serve the same underlying goal, reducing the amount of packaging material a retailer needs to place on the market at all, which is the one lever that reduces exposure to modulated fees regardless of which rating any given material eventually achieves.

Return packaging specifically deserves its own attention rather than being treated as identical to outbound packaging. An item returned in its original packaging generates a second EPR-relevant tonnage event where a retailer supplies additional void fill, tape, or a replacement box to complete the return, and a retailer that has moved outbound packaging to a Green-rated material but continues supplying Red-rated materials for returns handling is only capturing part of the available fee saving.

Reviewing returns packaging against the same RAM criteria used for outbound packaging closes that gap, and it’s a smaller, more contained change than a full outbound packaging redesign, which makes it a reasonable starting point for retailers wanting a quick win before tackling the larger packaging review.

FAQs

When did the UK’s packaging fees actually become eco-modulated? From the 2026-2027 scheme year. The first invoices reflecting the new modulated rates are expected in the second half of 2026, covering packaging placed on the market in 2025.

How much more does Red-rated packaging cost under the new system? 1.2 times the Amber base rate for 2026-2027, rising to 1.6 times in 2027-2028 and 2.0 times in 2028-2029. Green-rated packaging currently attracts roughly a 9% discount against the Amber rate.

Do online marketplace operators have to pay these packaging fees too? Yes. Online marketplace operators enabling international sales into the UK are explicitly included in scope alongside direct retailers, so selling through a marketplace doesn’t automatically remove a business’s packaging fee obligations.

Is my current packaging automatically “recyclable” under this scheme? Not necessarily. The Recyclability Assessment Methodology (RAM) rates packaging based on whether it’s recyclable at scale under the scheme’s specific methodology, which can differ from a general assumption that a material is recyclable. Getting an actual RAM rating checked is the only reliable way to know which fee tier applies.

Do small ecommerce retailers need to register with PackUK? Smaller producers below the main £1 million turnover and 25 tonne packaging thresholds face reduced obligations, but still need to report packaging data to remain compliant. It’s worth checking specific figures against the current thresholds rather than assuming exemption.

Read More

Ecommerce Regulation Update

In brief: The Competition and Markets Authority issued its first-ever financial penalty under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024 in April 2026, fining AA Driving School and BSM Driving School £4.2 million and ordering over £760,000 in customer refunds for “drip pricing,” hiding a mandatory fee until late in the checkout process. Separately, the government’s new subscription contracts regime, which will require clearer disclosure and easier cancellation, has been delayed again to Spring 2027.

Both developments point the same direction for online retailers: checkout pricing transparency is now an active enforcement priority, not a theoretical compliance risk, even while some of the more detailed subscription-specific rules still have time before they bite.

Ecommerce regulation update coverage in 2026 has been dominated by two developments in regulation and compliance that share a common thread: how clearly a retailer discloses what a customer will actually pay. The Competition and Markets Authority has demonstrated, with a real fine, that it will act on pricing transparency now rather than waiting for further legislation. At the same time, the more detailed rules on subscription contracts specifically have been pushed further into the future, which changes the urgency but not the direction of travel for any retailer running a subscription model.

The CMA Issued Its First-Ever Fine for Drip Pricing

On 15 April 2026, the CMA concluded its investigation into AA Driving School and BSM Driving School, both owned by the Automobile Association, finding that more than 80,000 customers booking driving lessons online between April and December 2025 were not shown the full price upfront. A mandatory £3 booking fee was instead added later in the online purchase journey, a practice the CMA classifies as unlawful drip pricing under the Digital Markets, Competition and Consumers Act 2024.

The CMA ordered the AA to refund over £760,000 to affected customers and imposed a £4.2 million fine, reduced by 40% from an initial £7 million penalty after the AA admitted the breach and settled early, the maximum discount available under the CMA’s settlement process.

This was the CMA’s first use of its new direct enforcement powers to impose both a financial penalty and mandatory consumer refunds for a substantive consumer law breach, and it landed only five months after the investigation was opened. The case was one of eight the CMA opened in November 2025 as part of a wider “major consumer protection drive” targeting drip pricing and related online pricing tactics, alongside advisory letters sent to 100 firms and new price transparency guidance. Further investigations into suspected fake and misleading reviews, and into early cancellation fees, were also opened in March 2026 and remain ongoing.

What Drip Pricing Enforcement Means for Ecommerce Checkout Design

The AA case wasn’t about driving lessons specifically; it was about a mandatory fee that wasn’t disclosed in the headline price a customer sees before starting the purchase journey. That’s directly relevant to any ecommerce checkout that adds fees, service charges, or delivery surcharges only after a customer has begun the buying process rather than showing the full price from the outset. The CMA’s own commentary on the case framed drip pricing as something that “tips the balance” for consumers watching every pound, and made clear this is a priority enforcement area with further cases expected.

The practical test the CMA applied is whether a fee is genuinely optional or effectively mandatory for most customers to complete their purchase. A retailer whose checkout adds a delivery charge visible before payment is in a different position to one that presents an artificially low headline price and adds a mandatory processing or service fee only at the final payment step. Reviewing where in the checkout journey any mandatory fees first appear, and whether the initial advertised price reflects what most customers will actually pay, is now a concrete compliance exercise rather than a general best-practice suggestion.

Common Ecommerce Fee Patterns Worth Reviewing Against This Test

A few checkout patterns are worth checking specifically against the standard the AA case set. A “service fee” or “handling fee” that applies to effectively every order, rather than to a genuinely optional add-on, sits closest to the AA’s mandatory booking fee, since the customer has no realistic way to avoid it while still completing the purchase. A delivery charge that only becomes visible after a customer has entered their address and moved further into checkout is more exposed than one shown against the product price or at the very start of the buying journey, even if the charge itself is legitimate and calculated fairly.

Currency conversion fees, payment surcharges tied to a specific payment method, and packaging or “eco” charges applied to all orders regardless of packaging choice all sit in similar territory if they aren’t disclosed until late in the journey. The distinguishing factor the CMA is applying isn’t whether a fee is reasonable in size, the AA’s fee was only £3, but whether the customer could see the full price they would actually pay before committing significant time to the purchase journey. A genuinely optional fee, such as expedited shipping a customer actively chooses, sits on the other side of that line, since the customer retains a real choice not to pay it.

The New Subscription Contracts Regime Is Delayed to Spring 2027

Separately from drip pricing enforcement, the government published its response to the consultation on the DMCCA’s new subscription contracts regime on 2 April 2026, confirming that implementation is delayed to Spring 2027, a further push back from the previously indicated Autumn 2026 timeline, which was itself already later than the original “not before Spring 2026” target.

When the regime does commence, it will require retailers offering subscription contracts, defined as arrangements that automatically recur or that auto-renew from a free or discounted trial into a paid rate, to give consumers clear “key pre-contract information” with strict presentation requirements, send reminders ahead of subscription renewals, and ensure cancellation can happen in a way that is genuinely straightforward rather than requiring unnecessary steps.

The regime applies regardless of where a trader is based if they offer subscriptions to UK consumers, and regardless of where a UK-based trader’s customers are located, so the delay doesn’t narrow which businesses will eventually be caught by the rules. Most of the DMCCA’s other consumer law provisions, including the drip pricing rules behind the AA case, have already been in force since April 2025, so the subscription-specific delay applies narrowly to that part of the Act rather than signalling a broader pause in enforcement.

What UK Retailers Should Do Now Despite the Delay

The subscription regime’s delay to Spring 2027 gives retailers real planning time, but the CMA’s enforcement pattern elsewhere suggests that time is better spent preparing than waiting. Any retailer running a subscription or auto-renewing offer should start reviewing cancellation flows now, since the eventual requirement for cancellation to be “straightforward” is unlikely to be satisfied by a process that currently requires a phone call or multiple account settings changes, and CRM and billing systems that need to send renewal reminders on a schedule can take longer to modify than the headline delay might suggest.

On drip pricing specifically, there’s no delay to plan around. The relevant rules have been in force since April 2025 and the CMA has now shown it will fine and order refunds under them, so reviewing checkout flows for any fee that appears only after a customer has started the purchase journey is worth doing immediately rather than treating it as a future compliance project. This is a lower-effort check than the subscription regime, since it’s mainly a question of checkout sequencing and pricing display rather than new systems or contractual terms.

FAQs

What did the CMA actually fine the AA for? Drip pricing, specifically failing to include a mandatory £3 booking fee in the headline price shown to more than 80,000 customers booking driving lessons online, with the fee only appearing later in the purchase journey.

Is drip pricing enforcement only relevant to driving schools? No. The CMA’s case against the AA is being treated as a template for online pricing practices generally, and the regulator has opened further investigations into fake reviews and early cancellation fees as part of the same enforcement drive.

Which ecommerce checkout fees are most at risk under this ruling? Fees applied to effectively every order, such as service or handling charges, and fees that only become visible late in checkout, such as processing or eco charges introduced after address entry, sit closest to the pattern the CMA penalised. A fee the customer can genuinely choose to avoid, like optional expedited shipping, is on safer ground.

When does the new subscription contracts regime take effect? Spring 2027, according to the government’s April 2026 consultation response. This is a further delay from the previously expected Autumn 2026 date.

Does the subscription regime delay mean retailers can wait to review their practices? Not entirely. Drip pricing rules are already in force and being actively enforced, so checkout pricing display is worth reviewing now. The subscription-specific rules have more lead time, but cancellation flows and CRM systems often take longer to change than expected, so early preparation is still worthwhile.

Read More

Marketplace Strategy Growth

In brief: Amazon announced a package of 2026 fee changes for its European stores, including the UK, rolled out between December 2025 and February 2026. The headline is an average fee reduction of £0.15 per unit sold, driven mainly by lower FBA fulfilment fees and reduced referral fees in categories like clothing, home products and pet supplies.

But the same package includes selective increases to storage fees and return-to-seller and liquidation fees, which Amazon’s own figures show bring the net average change on FBA closer to a £0.02 per-unit increase once both sides are counted. Marketplace strategy growth in 2026 depends less on any single fee change and more on how well a retailer models its specific category and product mix against the full package, not just the headline reduction.

Marketplace strategy growth for UK sellers has a genuinely new number to work with in 2026, following Amazon’s largest package of European fee changes in years. Getting the real impact right matters more than reacting to the headline framing, since the announcement, like most fee updates, presents the changes in the most favourable light for the platform relationship rather than as a neutral summary.

Amazon’s 2026 Fee Changes Reshape Marketplace Margin Calculations

Amazon rolled out its 2026 European fee changes in three phases. From 15 December 2025, FBA fulfilment fees for parcels were reduced by an average of £0.26 per unit across the UK, Germany, France, Italy and Spain stores, building on parcel fee decreases introduced the previous year.

From 5 January 2026, referral fees were cut in several high-volume categories, including Home Products (from 15% to 8% for items up to £20), Pet Clothing and Food (from 15% to 5% for items up to £10), and Grocery, Gourmet, and Vitamins, Minerals and Supplements (from 8% to 5% for items up to £10).

The remaining changes from the original announcement took effect from 1 February 2026, including an extension of Low-Price FBA eligibility to products priced at £20 or under, up from the previous £10 threshold, which Amazon says unlocks an average saving of roughly £0.45 per unit for sellers of low-priced, high-volume goods.

Clothing and Accessories referral fees were also reduced for lower-priced items specifically, cut from 8% to 5% for items priced up to £15 and from 15% to 10% for items priced £15 to £20, which matters given how large a share of UK Amazon sales sits in that category and price band.

The Net Effect Is More Nuanced Than the Headline Reduction

Amazon’s own announcement is worth reading past the headline figure. Alongside the reductions above, the same package includes selective fee increases, specifically to monthly storage fees and to return-to-seller and liquidation fees, plus updated FBA fees in the Netherlands, Sweden, Belgium, Ireland and Poland stores. By Amazon’s own account, once both the reductions and the increases are counted together, the net effect across FBA is closer to an average £0.02 per-unit increase, not the average £0.15 reduction that leads the announcement.

The distinction matters most for the specific parts of a seller’s operation that touch storage duration and returns handling. A seller carrying slow-moving stock for long periods, or with a high proportion of items going through return-to-seller or liquidation, is more exposed to the increases than a seller with fast inventory turnover and low return volumes, regardless of which category discount headline applies to their core product range. The only reliable way to know which side of that balance a specific business sits on is to run its own product mix through Amazon’s Revenue Calculator and Fee and Economics Preview report rather than relying on the announcement’s summary framing.

Marketplace Success Still Comes Down to Visibility and Fulfilment

Fee changes aside, the underlying drivers of marketplace performance haven’t shifted. Visibility within a marketplace’s own search and ranking system remains the primary lever most sellers can influence directly, since a well-optimised listing with strong reviews and consistent stock availability will outperform a poorly optimised one even when both carry identical fee structures. Pricing strategy has to account for the full fee stack, referral fees, fulfilment fees, storage costs, and any applicable digital services or advertising costs, rather than being set against a single headline fee figure that may not reflect a seller’s actual product mix.

Ranking mechanics on a marketplace tend to reward the same underlying signals regardless of which fee package is in effect at a given time: consistent stock availability rather than frequent stockouts, competitive and stable pricing rather than volatile repricing, delivery performance that meets the platform’s own promised speed, and a review profile that reflects genuine customer satisfaction rather than one padded through incentivised reviews, which most marketplaces actively police.

A seller optimising primarily around this season’s fee structure, rather than these underlying ranking fundamentals, is optimising for the wrong variable, since fee packages change annually while ranking fundamentals stay comparatively stable.

Fulfilment method choice remains a genuine strategic decision rather than a default setting. FBA’s fee changes shift the calculation for some sellers toward using Amazon’s fulfilment network more, particularly for low-priced, high-volume goods that now qualify for Low-Price FBA rates, while sellers with slower-moving or bulkier stock may find the storage fee increases push the balance back toward fulfilling some lines themselves or through a third-party logistics provider instead.

Amazon Isn’t the Only Marketplace Worth Watching

Amazon dominates UK marketplace discussion, partly because its fee changes are unusually well documented and partly because of its sheer scale, but it isn’t the only marketplace shaping UK retail. eBay remains a genuine channel for categories where its auction and fixed-price hybrid model and existing buyer base suit the product, particularly in areas like collectibles, refurbished goods, and categories with less new-item price competition than Amazon’s core catalogue.

Social commerce platforms, TikTok Shop being the most discussed example, represent a genuinely different sales mechanism built around content-driven discovery rather than search-driven intent, which suits certain product categories and brand styles better than a traditional marketplace listing ever could.

The strategic point isn’t that every retailer needs a presence on every marketplace. It’s that treating “marketplace strategy” as synonymous with “Amazon strategy” risks missing channels that might suit a specific product range better, and it compounds the single-platform dependency risk discussed below. Evaluating each marketplace on its own merits, rather than defaulting to whichever platform gets the most attention in trade coverage, is worth doing before committing meaningful inventory or marketing spend to any one of them.

Building a Multichannel Strategy Around Marketplaces

For most UK retailers, marketplaces work best as part of a broader channel mix rather than as the sole sales channel. Relying entirely on one marketplace concentrates a retailer’s fee exposure, policy risk, and search-ranking dependency in a single platform that can change its fee structure, as the 2026 changes demonstrate, with limited notice and no negotiation. Retailers running both a marketplace presence and their own store gain a hedge against exactly this kind of platform-level change, since fee increases on one channel don’t affect margin on direct sales through the retailer’s own site.

That doesn’t mean marketplaces should be treated as a lesser channel. Amazon’s own scale, search volume and existing customer trust make it a genuine acquisition channel that’s difficult to replicate through a retailer’s own site alone, particularly for reaching customers who wouldn’t otherwise discover a smaller or newer brand. The practical balance most retailers land on is using marketplaces for discovery and volume while building direct-channel relationships, email lists, and repeat-purchase behaviour that don’t depend on any single platform’s fee structure or ranking algorithm.

FAQs

Did Amazon actually reduce fees for UK sellers in 2026, or increase them? Both, depending on where a seller’s business sits. The headline change is an average £0.15 per-unit reduction, driven by lower FBA fulfilment and referral fees. But the same package includes storage fee and return-to-seller fee increases that, by Amazon’s own figures, bring the net average change on FBA closer to a £0.02 per-unit increase once everything is counted.

Which categories benefited most from Amazon’s referral fee cuts? Home Products, Pet Clothing and Food, Grocery and Vitamins, Minerals and Supplements, and lower-priced Clothing and Accessories items all saw meaningful referral fee reductions in the 2026 changes.

Should a seller switch to FBA because of the Low-Price FBA expansion? It depends on the product. The expanded £20 eligibility threshold particularly benefits high-volume, low-priced goods with fast turnover. Sellers with slower-moving or bulkier stock should model the storage fee increases in the same package before assuming FBA is now cheaper overall.

Is it risky to rely on a single marketplace for most of a business’s sales? Yes, in the sense that fee structures, ranking algorithms and platform policies can all change with limited notice, as the 2026 Amazon fee changes show. A multichannel approach that includes a retailer’s own store reduces exposure to any single platform’s decisions.

Should a UK retailer consider marketplaces beyond Amazon? Yes, depending on the product. eBay suits categories like collectibles and refurbished goods, while social commerce platforms such as TikTok Shop suit brands built around content-driven discovery. The right marketplace mix depends on the product range, not on which platform gets the most attention.

Read More

Latest Articles

Insights and Analysis from Business Professionals

Online Retail News delivers content that understands this environment, providing insights relevant to businesses trading across borders, navigating EU regulations and serving customers throughout Europe.

UK Delivery Challenges

Ecommerce Payment Trends

Headless Commerce Explained

View All Articles

Resources & Reports

Report

Choosing Ecommerce Platforms

Practical guidance on selecting ecommerce platforms, including architecture, scalability, and long-term cost considerations.

Managing Fulfilment Operations

Insights into logistics, carrier performance, warehouse efficiency, and returns management across UK and Irish markets.

Optimising Payments & Fraud

Analysis of payment methods, fraud prevention, SCA compliance, and checkout performance optimisation.

Scaling Through Marketplaces

Understanding Amazon, eBay, TikTok Shop, and marketplace strategy for sustainable ecommerce growth.

Commentary

Online Retail News delivers independent insight into the issues shaping UK and Irish ecommerce. From platform decisions to fulfilment performance and regulatory change, coverage is designed for professionals making real commercial decisions.

Contributors include journalists, operators, and specialists who understand the operational realities of ecommerce. Articles prioritise clarity, evidence, and practical value over promotional content.

Online Retail News Editorial Team

Online Retail News

Industry Focus

Analysis Across UK Ecommerce
Small Business Landscape

Online Retail News publishes independent reporting, analysis, and practical guidance for ecommerce professionals. Coverage spans platforms, logistics, payments, marketplaces, and regulatory developments affecting how businesses operate.

 

Explore Our Sectors

Years of Experience
+ 0

Insights & Research

Headless Commerce Explained

Read More

Stay Informed on

Online Retail News

Online Retail News is an independent trade publication for professionals working in or alongside the UK and Irish online retail sector. It covers platform developments, fulfilment and logistics, payments, marketplace dynamics, consumer behaviour data, regulation, and the sustainability pressures shaping how online retail operates.

Schedule a Consultation