Law grad Sasha Braham explores the impact of the litigation
Last month proceedings commenced in the UK High Court between Chinese founded fast fashion giants, Shein and Temu. Shein is suing rival platform Temu for copyright infringement, on what it claims as “an industry scale“, alleging that Temu used over 2,300 of its proprietary product photos to market copies of Shein’s clothing without authorisation, to leverage Shein’s market position in the ultra-fast fashion market. Shein is being represented by Freshfields; Temu by A&O Shearman.
The litigation raises questions that are becoming increasingly significant for global e-commerce platforms: when does an online marketplace cross the line from passive intermediary to active participant in copyright infringement? How will courts assess platform liability in the context of algorithm-driven global fast fashion platforms. And to what extent can an online marketplace avoid liability by claiming it is merely an intermediary when it profits from and facilitates third-party sales?
Who are Shein and Temu?
Shein and Temu are two of the world’s most popular budget shopping platforms. Both rely on ultra low prices, direct from manufacturer shipping and algorithm driven product discovery to attract consumers globally. However the businesses operates on different models, which is a key distinction as to how the court will assess liability.
Shein operates primarily as a fast fashion retailer. It has a supply chain with thousands of manufacturers and sells directly to consumers using a rapid small batch production model, which is designed to respond quickly to fashion trends. Its product photography is a key part of its marketing strategy aimed at Gen Zs engaging with marketing content on social media like TikTok or Instagram.
Temu, however, is an online market place. It is not involved in production or manufacturing; rather, it is a platform that hosts independent sellers and offers a broad selection of products. Since its international launch in 2022, Temu has rapidly gained market share in the fast fashion industry which had traditionally been dominated by Shein.
Copyright issues
For fast-fashion businesses, product photography is a valuable commercial asset. High-quality imagery drives customer engagement, strengthen brand identity and influence online purchasing behaviour.
Under UK copyright law, original product photographs are automatically protected as artistic works under the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
Shein alleges that Temu sellers reproduced Shein’s professional marketing images without authorisation in order to “piggy back” off of Shein as a more established competitor and obtain an unfair advantage. They are arguing that the unauthorised use of professional photos and reproduction of garment patters intentionally confuse shoppers and hurt Shein’s exclusivity by advertising near identical garments. The scale of the alleged infringement, around 2,300 images, has been used by Shein to suggest it is too large to constitute a mistake.
Temu’s primary defence rests on the argument that they function merely as an intermediary host and should therefore benefit from protections typically afforded to online marketplaces, under Regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce Regulations 2002. Temu will argue that it neither uploaded the images or had knowledge of the infringement, and upon being notified via the injunction, disabled access. However, the more a platform curates, ranks or algorithmically promotes, thereby shaping how third-party listings are presented to customers, the harder it is for Temu to sustain a claim of passivity. The outcome will significantly influence how courts assess platform liability in the context of global e-commerce marketplaces, and to which extent Temu was not involved despite being a platform which curates listings, applies recommended algorithms, takes commissions on sales and promotes products to consumers.
The competition law counterclaim
Temu have brought a counterclaim alleging that Shein violated competition law by tying fast fashion suppliers to exclusive agreements, with proceedings due to go to court next year. Temu have also counterclaimed, seeking damages for having to remove the product listings after Shein obtained an injunction.
If established, this conduct could amount to anti-competitive agreements under Chapter I of the Competition Act 1998 or an abuse of a dominant market position under Chapter II.
Such allegations reflect growing regulatory concern regarding the market power of dominant digital platforms and whether supplier exclusivity arrangements distort competition within fast fashion supply chains. If proven, the allegations could expose Shein to scrutiny under both UK and international competition regimes relating to anti-competitive agreements and the abuse of their market position.
Regulatory pressure on ultra-fast fashion brands
That’s not the only issue both companies face: Temu and Shein are being confronted with mounting regulatory pressure on an international scale.
Last year EU Commissioner Michael McGrath vowed to crack down on the sale of goods from popular Chinese retail platforms that allegedly break the law due to their toxicity and danger. Items apparently include sunglasses with no UV filter and children’s raincoats with toxic chemicals. The Commission raised the point of competition: “it’s not only about protecting consumers, but there is a serious level playing field issue here for European businesses, because they are expected to compete with sellers who are not complying with our rules”.
The UK government has faced scrutiny for potentially entertaining the removal of the de minimis exemption, which allows goods valued at £135 or less to be imported into the UK without a customs duty, sooner than its March 2029 deadline. Trump scrapped the de minimis in the US last year, goods from China now face taxes of up to 145% on imports. British retailers have suggested that UK retailers cannot afford to spend another three years competing on unfair playing fields against importers not paying tariffs. However, as of June 2026, the European Commission introduced a €3 custom charge, designed to curb the exploitation of such systems by platforms such as Shein and Temu.
These developments suggest that the regulatory environment in which both platforms built their commercial models is shifting rapidly, with consequences that extend beyond the current litigation.
Why the case matters
The Shein v Temu litigation is about more than copied photographs. It represents a wider test case concerning:
• The scope of platform liability for third-party sellers
• The conditions under which a platform has ‘actual knowledge’ of infringing content sufficient to trigger a duty to act
• Whether the supplier exclusivity arrangement in the fast fashion supply chain amounted to anti-competitive behaviour
• The future regulation of global e-commerce marketplaces
The case also arrives at a time of heightened scrutiny for copyright infringement and accountability more broadly. Most recently, British pop star Dua Lipa has filed a lawsuit against Samsung Electronics seeking $15 million in damages and accusing Samsung of using her image to market its television sets, without permission.
As regulators and courts continue to scrutinise platform accountability, the outcome of this dispute may help define the legal boundaries of online marketplace responsibility in the UK and internationally.
Sasha Braham is a history graduate from the University of Manchester and Postgraduate Diploma in Law and Professional Practice graduate from King’s College London. She is an aspiring commercial solicitor with an interest in intellectual property and employment law.
