![\"](\"https:\/\/www.newsbeep.com\/uk\/wp-content\/uploads\/2026\/03\/64cec1c409aefede4fc91ad50d2dafd201fd0f1e-1200x675.png\"\/)
<\/p>\nJade-Ruyu Yan is a UK Reporting Fellow at Tech Policy Press and openDemocracy. This story was produced in partnership with openDemocracy.<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
United Kingdom Competition and Markets Authority chair Doug Gurr. Source: Doug Gurr\/LinkedIn<\/a><\/p>\n When Doug Gurr was named chair of the United Kingdom\u2019s Competition and Markets Authority last month \u2014 having already led the watchdog on an interim basis since January last year \u2014 one major case in his docket was a high-stakes decision on how to regulate two major cloud service providers. One of these was the web services arm of his former employer, Amazon.<\/p>\n \u201cDuring the pre-appointment hearing, we discussed perceptions arising from my previous role at Amazon,\u201d Gurr subsequently said in a letter sent to the chair of the Business and Trade Committee<\/a> in early March. As a result, Gurr continued, he would be recusing himself from the case, which also involved Amazon\u2019s competitor Microsoft, even as he claimed that, \u201cit is clear that no actual conflict of interest is capable of arising.\u201d<\/p>\n But Gurr\u2019s \u201crecusal addresses narrow conflicts, not broader influence,\u201d Tommaso Valletti, an economics professor at Imperial College Business School, told openDemocracy. \u201cThe real concern is the shaping of priorities, framing, and appetite for intervention. That kind of influence persists even when formal rules are followed.\u201d<\/p>\n Concerns around Gurr\u2019s appointment are not about whether he will act for personal benefit (in his letter, Gurr noted that he does not hold any shares in Amazon). Rather, experts are worried about how someone who spent a significant part of his career helping Amazon become a dominant player in retail and technology thinks the CMA should regulate dominant mega-corporations such as Amazon.<\/p>\n \u201cThe question is less whether he\u2019s going to do specific favors for his former employer,\u201d said NYU adjunct professor of law Paul M. Barrett, pointing out that this can be monitored and dealt with through recusals. Rather, he said, it\u2019s whether Gurr will bring \u201cthe mindset of someone who is doing the business of the people\u201d or \u201cthe mindset of his former colleagues in industry, which is \u2018we\u2019re here to maximize profits\u2019.\u201d<\/p>\n These fears may already be playing out. Last week, the watchdog announced its three-year strategy<\/a>, which says that while enforcing competition is one of its key objectives, \u201ceffective competition does not preclude business collaboration. So, we are also stepping up action to enable legitimate, pro-growth collaboration.\u201d<\/p>\n And earlier this month, the head of the CMA\u2019s cloud inquiry case, Kip Meek, confirmed to The Morning Intelligence<\/a> newsletter that he left the CMA in January, one year before his term was due to end, over fears about the watchdog\u2019s independence and the lack of progress since last July, when his inquiry\u2019s investigation found that the CMA should take action to stem Microsoft Azure and Amazon Web Services\u2019 dominance of the cloud market.<\/p>\n Amazon\u2019s expansion of its cloud services in the UK coincided with Gurr\u2019s tenure as the head of Amazon UK. The press release<\/a> announcing his appointment in April 2016 referenced the rollout of \u201c\u200b\u200bheavy investments in our infrastructure,\u201d including the \u201cnew Amazon Web Services (AWS) UK data center region\u201d, while a glowing profile of Gurr in the Evening Standard<\/a> said his mandate at Amazon was \u201cto knit together its three main products \u2014 shopping and entertainment; devices and business services (like cloud computing) \u2014 in the UK.\u201d<\/p>\n Now, five years since he left Amazon, NYU law school professor of trade regulation Eleanor Fox believes that putting Gurr in charge of the body tasked with deciding how to regulate Big Tech in the UK is akin to \u201cthe fox guarding the chicken coop.\u201d<\/p>\n The revolving door<\/p>\n Since leaving Amazon in 2020, Gurr has taken on a string of high-profile director and chair roles \u2014 many of which are tied to UK government departments and publicly funded institutes and foundations, suggesting a clear draw toward the public sector.<\/p>\n At the same time, he has sought to distance himself from his former employer. Gurr makes no mention of his nine-year tenure at Amazon on his LinkedIn<\/a> and told MPs at last month\u2019s pre-appointment hearing<\/a> that he has \u201cno formal connection [to the company] whatsoever.\u201d<\/p>\n Yet openDemocracy\u2019s findings tell a more complicated story: Gurr has crossed paths with Amazon or his former colleagues at the company in several roles he\u2019s held since leaving.<\/p>\n Gurr\u2019s ongoing links to Amazon are perhaps most notable in his role as director of the Natural History Museum, which he has held since December 2020. The museum is publicly funded and sponsored by the UK government, which has confirmed Gurr will continue his directorship alongside leading the CMA.<\/p>\n Under Gurr\u2019s leadership, the museum appointed Tanuja Randery, VP and managing director of Amazon Web Services for Europe, the Middle East and Africa, to its board of trustees<\/a> and established its first and only partnership with AWS, which its website names as<\/a> the \u201clead sponsor of our Urban Nature Project.\u201d<\/p>\n That project, a reimagining of the museum\u2019s five-acre London gardens, announced in October 2022<\/a>, relies on a \u201cData Ecosystem being developed in collaboration with Amazon Web Services and built using their technologies\u201d to monitor change in urban environments.<\/p>\n A spokesperson from the Natural History Museum told openDemocracy that \u201cGurr was not involved in securing the Museum\u2019s partnership with AWS.\u201d Yet Gurr appeared to suggest otherwise in his application to be the CMA chair.<\/p>\n Gurr lists \u201craising over \u00a3400m to support the museum\u2019s scientific and public engagement programs, including […] the Urban Nature Project\u201d among his \u201cachievements\u201d as the museum\u2019s director on his CV, which was published by the Business and Trade Committee<\/a> last month.<\/p>\n The museum\u2019s spokesperson added, \u201cTanuja Randery was appointed Trustee by the prime minister. All of these processes were properly followed and have long been a matter of public record.\u201d Randery did not respond to requests for comment.<\/p>\n Gurr is also the chair of the troubled Alan Turing Institute<\/a>, the UK\u2019s national institute for data science and AI, which receives core funding from the government. In July 2023, the year after his appointment, the institute hired a new chief executive: Jean Innes, who previously worked at Amazon for two years, overlapping with Gurr\u2019s time at the company.<\/p>\n Innes did not respond to requests for comment via LinkedIn and the institute.<\/p>\n Our Content delivered to your inbox.<\/p>\n Join our newsletter on issues and ideas at the intersection of tech & democracy<\/p>\n Thank you!<\/p>\n You have successfully joined our subscriber list.<\/p>\n Over the past ten years, Gurr has also held various non-executive directorships at the UK government\u2019s Department for Health and Social Care, the Department for Work and Pensions and the Land Registry \u2014 several of which have raised questions over his ties to Amazon.<\/p>\n In 2020, the government was forced to deny that Gurr<\/a>, then the Amazon UK boss, had used his position as a board member at the Land Registry, which registers the ownership of land and property in England and Wales, to influence a decision to award its first contract to Amazon Web Services, worth \u00a34.8m.<\/p>\n Approached for comment by openDemocracy, a spokesperson for the Land Registry denied Gurr\u2019s involvement in the decision, saying: \u201cOur non-executive board members are not \u2014 and never have been \u2014 able to input into procurement activities and decisions.\u201d<\/p>\n The government was also criticized for appointing Gurr<\/a> to a selection panel tasked with choosing the Cabinet Office\u2019s chief digital officer in August 2020, when he was still the Amazon UK lead. Two months earlier, the Cabinet Office\u2019s Government Digital Service had awarded Amazon Web Services a one-year, \u00a36.6m hosting contract<\/a>.<\/p>\n When asked about Gurr\u2019s links to the company, representatives of Amazon and Amazon Web Services declined to comment.<\/p>\n Gurr is, of course, far from the only Amazon exec to benefit from the revolving door between the company and the government.<\/p>\n Another former Amazon UK CEO, Brian McBride, went on to become the lead non-executive director at the Ministry of Defence, while Sachin Jogia, who left Amazon the year after Gurr, having overseen the global development of the Alexa smart home device, holds roles at HM Revenue and Customs and the Department for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs, and was previously chief technology officer at Ofcom, the UK\u2019s communications watchdog.<\/p>\n Others have gone the other way, moving into senior roles at Amazon after leaving government. These include the UK\u2019s former chief technology officer and national technology adviser, Liam Maxwell, and the Home Office\u2019s former chief digital officer, Norman Driskell, who came under fire in 2017 for taking a job at Amazon without approval<\/a> after overseeing lucrative government contracts with the company \u2014 a breach of rules intended to prevent civil servants exploiting public sector work for personal gain.<\/p>\n None of this is inherently problematic, according to NYU law professor Barrett. It\u2019s \u201cfine for people to spend 20 or 30 years involved in business, and then say, now I\u2019ve reached a stage in my career where I want to be in public service,\u201d he said. \u201cThat can be a wonderful story, that\u2019s all good.\u201d<\/p>\n But crucially, Barrett said, this doesn\u2019t appear to be the case with Gurr\u2019s appointment at the CMA. \u201cThe Labor government has brought him in to \u2018promote growth\u2019,\u201d Barrett said. \u201cThat\u2019s code language for letting business do what it wants to do.\u201d<\/p>\n Implications overseas<\/p>\n \u201c[Gurr\u2019s] appointment to me alone is nothing much,\u201d said Alexandre de Streel, the former chair of the expert group on the online platform economy advising at the European Commission. What\u2019s more troubling, he added, is \u201cthe whole story behind\u201d his appointment, including the firing of the previous CMA chair Marcus Bokkerink.<\/p>\n The Labor government ousted Bokkerink in January 2025 over what critics described as his overly heavy-handed regulation of business<\/a>, particularly the tech sector. Gurr\u2019s subsequent appointment as the watchdog\u2019s interim head was widely seen as a green light for Big Tech, indicative of Keir Starmer\u2019s push to make the UK more \u201cbusiness-friendly.\u201d In the year after Gurr took office, the CMA didn\u2019t block any mergers \u2013 a first since 2017<\/a>, according to reporting from The Financial Times.<\/p>\n After Gurr\u2019s pre-appointment hearing earlier this year, MPs on the Business and Trade Committee expressed concerns about the process by which he was chosen to lead the CMA permanently.<\/p>\n In a follow-up report, MPs noted that the Advisory Assessment Panel, which was responsible for vetting and interviewing applicants, found that Gurr was the only \u201cappointable\u201d candidate for the role. This, they said, is \u201cnot the hallmark of a robust recruitment process.\u201d<\/p>\n The four-person assessment panel had 27 applicants to sift through, according to a Freedom of Information request by Jon Menon at MLex<\/a>, a legal and regulatory news publication. Of these, it shortlisted five or fewer for interviews. One of the panel\u2019s members was Justin Basini, a fintech company CEO and the CMA\u2019s senior independent director.<\/p>\n While it could be seen as standard for someone in Basini\u2019s position to be on the panel, it would have been a boon for Gurr to be interviewed by one of his colleagues at the CMA, according to a former CMA employee who spoke to openDemocracy on the condition of anonymity. \u201cWhen you\u2019ve been the interim, you\u2019ve got a huge inside track,\u201d they said.<\/p>\n