Imagine a warehouse on the outskirts of a Chinese manufacturing city, where the loading docks are never completely silent, flatbed trucks are constantly arriving and departing, and the packages stacked floor to ceiling are headed for doorsteps in Berlin, Paris, Amsterdam, and Warsaw rather than department stores or boutiques. Every package includes a small item, such as a kitchen gadget, a phone case, a pair of earrings, or a blouse. less than €22. duty-free shipping. and arriving at a rate of twelve million parcels every day, according to the European Commission’s own count. 4.6 billion of these low-value goods were imported into the EU in 2024 alone, which was twice as much as the previous year. It was that doubling in just one year that ultimately forced regulators to move past the point of contemplation and into what clearly appears to be a reckoning.
Although the term still understates the operational reality, Shein and Temu are the two names most closely linked to what critics have come to refer to as the ultra-fast fashion era. Shein, which was established in China and currently has its legal headquarters in Singapore, has created a remarkable business by reducing the time between trend identification and product availability to a few days. The company lists thousands of new styles every week at prices that are genuinely unmatched by their American and European rivals.
| Field | Details |
|---|---|
| Companies Targeted | Shein and Temu — Chinese-founded e-commerce and fast fashion platforms; among the world’s largest by parcel volume |
| Shein Headquarters | Founded in China; legally headquartered in Singapore; operates globally with primary markets in US, UK, and Europe |
| Temu Parent Company | PDD Holdings (China) — Temu launched in the US in 2022 and rapidly expanded into Europe |
| Scale of EU Import Problem | 4.6 billion low-value items (below €22) imported into EU in one year — equal to 12 million parcels per day; 91% from China |
| Year-on-Year Import Growth | 4.6 billion parcels — double the volume recorded just one year earlier in 2023 |
| EU Regulatory Action (Feb 2025) | European Commission made Shein and Temu liable for unsafe/dangerous products sold on their platforms |
| Investigation Body | Consumer Protection Cooperation (CPC) Network — coordinated probe into Shein for suspected EU consumer protection violations |
| Digital Services Act Investigation | Temu under separate DSA investigation since October 2024 — still ongoing as of early 2025 |
| Shein Fine Reported | Over €190 million in fines faced; company tightened internal compliance controls in response |
| EU Justice Commissioner’s Reaction | Expressed public “shock” at toxicity and dangers of goods sold by Shein and Temu (July 2025) |
| France’s Legislative Response | Fast fashion “kill bill” passed unanimously — bans advertising for ultra-fast fashion; penalties up to €10 per clothing item by 2030 |
| US Parallel Action | US government ended duty-free exemption for low-value packages — directly targeting Shein and Temu’s shipping model |
| Proposed EU Customs Reform | Commission proposed scrapping duty-free exemption for parcels below €150 — currently being fast-tracked through EU legislative process |
| Environmental Argument | Volume of cheap imports cited as having measurable negative climate and environmental impact; EU sellers face unfair competition from non-compliant imports |
Temu, a more recent competitor supported by the massive Chinese e-commerce company PDD Holdings, adopted a similar strategy with even more aggressive pricing, heavily investing in advertising to quickly establish itself in Western markets. Crucially, both businesses relied on a duty-free loophole that exempted low-value packages from customs charges. This provision was created decades ago for individual travelers, not for platforms that ship billions of packages every year.
In February 2025, the European Commission took action against Shein and Temu, declaring that they would be held accountable for dangerous and hazardous goods sold on their platforms. This change eliminated the companies’ prior legal protection by citing their status as marketplaces rather than direct retailers. The announcement coincided with the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network, an organization that connects national consumer authorities throughout the bloc, launching a coordinated investigation into Shein due to allegations that the company had been routinely breaking EU consumer protection regulations.
Temu, which has been the subject of a separate investigation under the Digital Services Act since October 2024, had to deal with complaints from several regulatory agencies at the same time. After examining what authorities had discovered within these shipments, the EU justice commissioner publicly expressed her shock at the toxicity and risks of some of the products being sold. It is not coincidental that a senior European official would use such language. It conveys a political stance rather than just a bureaucratic one.
Because Brussels’ framing goes beyond product safety into something more structural, it is worth analyzing. The Commission contended that low-cost imports from non-compliant platforms lead to unfair competition for European vendors who do adhere to regulations, such as paying workers fairly, testing products for safety, and covering the costs of environmental compliance, only to be undercut by rivals who do not. In other words, a loophole has tilted the playing field, drawing customers to prices that only exist because someone further up the supply chain isn’t receiving enough compensation or protection. According to Emily Stochl of the sustainable fashion nonprofit Remake, these companies’ underpayment of their employees keeps the price of fast fashion artificially low. The low price is not a result of the market. It’s an invisible expense that has been diverted to another location.
Before Brussels took action, France had already reached a more difficult decision. The French lower house of parliament passed what observers dubbed a “kill bill” for ultra-fast fashion in March 2024. This legislation not only forbids advertising for businesses that meet specific ultra-fast fashion thresholds, but it also penalizes Shein-style platforms with increasing fines per clothing item, reaching €10 per garment by 2030. The legislative language, which was directly inspired by the tobacco wars, compared the addictive appeal of consistently inexpensive, trend-following fashion to the kind of consumption behavior that societies ultimately determine necessitates legal intervention rather than consumer choice. Some people might consider the comparison to be exaggerated. However, the vote was unanimous, indicating that there was no longer any political desire for a more lenient stance.
The duty-free exemption for low-value packages, which had been essential to both companies’ logistics model, was being discontinued by the United States, which was taking a parallel course. The simultaneous squeeze from both major markets is not accidental; rather, it represents a significant and relatively quick change in how governments on both sides of the Atlantic view the import volumes that e-commerce platforms of this size can produce and the regulatory frameworks that were never intended to handle them.
It’s still unclear if these actions will significantly alter the fundamental economics of ultra-fast fashion or if they will only create friction that platforms and customers will eventually learn to live with. At least on the surface, Shein’s response, which expresses a willingness to “engage” and a desire to guarantee that European customers can “shop with peace of mind,” sounds more like a company figuring out how much it can absorb than one that is radically rethinking its business model. Temu didn’t answer right away. There is a sense that the outcome will depend more on whether the underlying loophole—the duty-free exemption for parcels under €150—is actually closed with the urgency the Commission is now demanding than on the specific penalties imposed. This is evident as the machinery of European regulation closes around two companies that moved more quickly than regulatory frameworks were designed to track. For now, the packages continue to come in.
