Inside the Shein vs Temu court battles: what their legal war reveals about ultra-fast fashion

Category Companies supported by: Home Ecommerce Legal Inside the Shein vs Temu court battles: what their legal war reveals about ultra-fast fashion Temu wins a battle against Shein following more than two thousand product images... which reveal how ultra-cheap fashion operates. August 14, 2026 By Rafael Sotelo Content manager in Marketing4eCommerce T his time, Temu emerged victorious. But the recent ruling handed down by the High Court of Justice of England and Wales is just another episode in the long history of legal disputes that Shein and Temu—the two leading representatives of China’s power in today’s eCommerce landscape—have been engaged in over the past few years. But this is not just another court case. As we will see, the newly published judgment offers a very, very, very interesting snapshot of how the two giants compete with each other and with the rest of the global eCommerce industry. The origins of the case The two opposing parties To understand the roots of this dispute, it is necessary to examine some key aspects of how both business models operate. On one side is Shein, corporately operated by Singapore-based Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. The platform has a small marketplace component, but most of its business comes from selling clothing under its own brand. For production, Shein uses two models: OEM (Original Equipment Manufacturer), in which Shein provides manufacturers with complete designs and specifications, and ODM (Original Design Manufacturer), in which suppliers create the initial design and Shein guides and refines it. This litigation relates exclusively to the ODM model. We must also consider the central element of the case: the images in its catalogue. These may be produced by Guangzhou Shein employees, external agencies or photographers, or by the suppliers themselves or photographers hired by them. On the other side is Temu, whose British subsidiary is Whaleco UK Limited and which operates as a third-party marketplace. Temu does not sell its own products; instead, it acts as a virtual storefront for thousands of independent Chinese merchants who upload their catalogues, manage their prices and provide their own images. Now that both parties have been introduced, let us get to the heart of the matter. A demanding model for the production chain One of the most interesting aspects of the legal dispute is that it highlights the pressure a giant such as Shein places on the production chain. As we saw in “Shein opens its black box: this is how the ultra-cheap fashion giant works” , under its Large-scale Automated Test and Reorder (LATR) production system, Shein requires suppliers to produce small initial batches—around 200 units—to quickly test which garments resonate with consumers. From the internal Shein documents analysed in that article, we know that if a product fails to reach a minimum sales volume, Shein removes the garment from its platform. The ruling explains that this practice may leave some manufacturers with hundreds of unsold units in their warehouses. Selling that excess stock cheaply on the traditional wholesale market would entail significant financial losses, so some manufacturers found an escape route through Temu: they created stores to clear garments rejected by Shein, in some cases using the same photographs under which those products had appeared on Shein. When Shein discovered its garments and images on the rival platform, it began escalating the matter through the courts. In June 2023, the company sent a mass notification demanding that Temu immediately remove more than 8,000 web links within three days over alleged intellectual property infringements. The claim caused problems for Temu, which at the time was dealing with thousands of similar complaints in the United States. After reviewing the UK links, Temu identified inconsistencies in the list submitted by Shein, ranging from broken links to cases in which the same photograph was associated with hundreds of different products. Even so, in August 2023, Temu decided to take drastic action and remove thousands of products en masse. Who owned the rights? However, a significant problem began to emerge: Shein could not always prove that, at the time it submitted its claims, it owned the rights it was seeking to enforce. In the case of photographs taken by its employees, for example, Guangzhou Shein did not formally assign those rights to Roadget until 13 July 2023, more than a month after the initial notice was sent to Temu. The case file covered 2,559 product listings on Temu’s UK website. In an attempt to find a manageable way of addressing the matter, the British court—which I imagine was desperate when faced with such an enormous volume of content—decided to take a practical approach. First, 100 listings were selected at random. Following this initial documentary review, twenty were ultimately chosen for trial, ten by each party: four involving employees, thirteen involving suppliers and three involving agencies. As the proceedings progressed, Shein abandoned a large proportion of those claims. By the time the case went to trial, only five of the original twenty samples remained: four photographs taken by Guangzhou Shein employees and one supplier photograph. Ultimately, the judgment rejected the various grounds on which Shein sought to hold Temu directly liable for the presence of those photographs on its marketplace. The court held that merely providing a platform on which sellers can upload images does not mean that Temu is authorising copyright infringement, particularly when its contracts prohibit merchants from using infringing content and mechanisms exist for reporting and removing it. The judgment also explains that, with millions of listings published on its platform, Temu cannot know in advance whether a specific photograph infringes copyright. For liability to arise, it is relevant whether the platform has knowledge of the specific infringement and has been given a reasonable amount of time to investigate it. The judgment further concludes that the enforcement of the takedown orders sought by Shein affected the legitimate sale of products on Temu. As a result, Temu—which began this story as the defendant—may ultimately seek compensation for the commercial harm caused by the proceedings. Just another legal episode As mentioned above, this is just another episode in the long history of legal disputes between the two companies. For example, in 2024, Shein filed a lawsuit against its rival Temu, accusing it of copyright infringement and trade secret theft. The lawsuit, filed in a US federal court, alleged that Temu had used Shein’s designs and trade secrets without authorisation and that “using this stolen information, Temu instructed its sellers to copy Shein’s best-selling products and sell imitation versions on Temu’s website and mobile app.” A few months earlier, in 2023, Temu had filed another lawsuit against Shein in Massachusetts, accusing it of violating antitrust law by preventing manufacturers from working with Temu. The lawsuit alleged that Shein used threats and intimidation to force manufacturers to accept exclusivity agreements and submit to unfair conditions, including punitive fines and the transfer of intellectual property rights. Temu also claimed that Shein punished merchants who worked with its platform by imposing extrajudicial fines. What will the next episode in this series be? Related posts The UK will also eliminate de minimis exemptions on low-value shipments The EU declares war on Temu and Shein with a tariff of 3 euros for low-value shipments Temu is already the second most visited eCommerce website in the world, surpassed only by Amazon Other articles related to Marketplaces Shein Published by Rafael Sotelo Content manager in Marketing4eCommerce Stay up to date! -->