Shein has just lost a huge lawsuit against Temu | Insurance Business

Chinese online shopping site could be on the hook for huge damages Legal Insights By Stephen Owens Aug 14, 2026 Share A London court has dismissed Shein's copyright case against rival Temu, in a ruling that's likely to be discussed in fashion and retail circles for a while yet. But there's a narrower point in the judgment that matters more for insurance: what happens financially when a business gets an injunction, uses it aggressively, and then can't back up the underlying claim. What actually happened Shein took Temu to the Business and Property Courts in London, arguing that Temu's third-party sellers had used thousands of photographs lifted from Shein's own product listings. The claim initially covered more than 2,500 disputed product listings and was backed by two interim injunctions, which required Temu to pull flagged images within two business days of being notified. By the time the case reached trial in May 2026, Shein had already dropped all but a handful of the sample photographs it was relying on. Its own investigation into who actually owned the copyright in supplier and freelance-shot images kept turning up gaps. Mrs Justice Bacon's judgment, handed down on 13 August, dismissed the remaining claim outright. Temu had not authorised infringement by its users, had not "communicated" the images to the public in the relevant legal sense, and had no reason to believe the flagged photos were infringing before it removed them. The judge added that even if Shein had won on the substance, Temu could still have relied on the hosting defence available to platforms that act as neutral intermediaries rather than active publishers of content. Temu's counterclaim, on the other hand, succeeded. Shein's injunctions had forced Temu to strip thousands of listings from its site, including many that turned out not to infringe anything. Shein is now liable to Temu under the cross-undertaking in damages it gave when it first obtained those injunctions. How much it owes will be decided at a separate hearing on quantum. Shein has pushed back on the outcome. A company spokesperson told Reuters there was no real dispute that Shein owned the images or that they had appeared on Temu's site, and argued that Temu avoided liability largely because of where its servers happen to be located rather than because of anything to do with the copying itself. Winning the injunction isn't the end of the risk Anyone applying for an interim injunction in England and Wales is normally required to give a cross-undertaking in damages: a promise to compensate the other side if the order later turns out to have been wrongly granted or wrongly used. This is standard practice, not small print. What this case shows clearly is how that promise can come back to bite. Shein got its injunctions and used them to force down thousands of Temu listings quickly. It then abandoned most of the underlying claims once it became clear it couldn't establish ownership of the photographs. The court found the injunctions were a direct cause of Temu's losses, and rejected Shein's argument that Temu should have acted differently or would have removed the listings anyway under its own standard takedown process. That's the kind of exposure covered by intellectual property insurance and by broader legal expenses cover . A business pursues enforcement in good faith, wins some procedural ground early on, and ends up facing a damages claim from the party it was suing. Analysis from Willis Towers Watson cited in earlier IP insurance guidance put litigation costs alone at six figures for smaller businesses and eight figures for larger ones, before any award of damages, let alone a cross-undertaking claim on top. Brokers advising retailers, brand owners or platforms with an appetite for enforcement now have a recent, high-profile example of why that cover matters on the offensive side of a dispute, not only the defensive one. The case has also drawn comment from the UK's IP legal community. Noëlle Pearson, a trade mark attorney at Marks & Clerk, was quoted in trade and retail press during the trial, pointing out how central intellectual property has become to competitive strategy between platforms - used offensively against rivals as much as defensively to protect a brand's own position. The final judgment adds a practical footnote to that: getting the legal groundwork wrong when using IP offensively carries its own cost. Owning a brand doesn't mean owning the paperwork There's a second, quieter lesson in the judgment. Shein didn't lose because no copying took place; the court accepted that some clearly did. It lost largely because it couldn't establish, to the standard required, that it actually owned the copyright in most of the disputed images at the point it went to court. Many of the photographs had been taken by suppliers' own freelance photographers under arrangements that were vague, unwritten, or simply never checked before Shein relied on supplier warranties as if they settled the question of ownership. That issue reaches well beyond fast fashion. Any UK business that licenses, buys or inherits creative content, product imagery or design work from third parties, and later wants to enforce rights over it or insure against infringement, needs a paper trail showing who created the work, what rights actually changed hands, and when. A supplier contract that simply states "you warrant you own this" is not the same thing as a documented chain of title. The Chartered Insurance Institute's guidance on IP good practice has made a similar point before: check the ownership and licensing paperwork before relying on it, not after a dispute lands. A steadier line for online marketplaces There's a more reassuring thread in the judgment for insurers and brokers covering marketplace and platform businesses. The court set out fairly clearly what a platform needs to avoid doing to keep the protection of the hosting defence, which shields intermediaries from liability for content their users upload, provided they don't take an active editorial role and act promptly once notified of a problem. Ordinary commercial features - image-editing tools, running promotions, setting delivery terms - weren't enough on their own to strip Temu of that protection. What would have mattered is whether Temu had actively curated or promoted the specific infringing content, and the evidence didn't support that. That's useful for underwriters pricing technology errors-and-omissions or platform liability risk for e-commerce clients: courts are still drawing a fairly firm line between a platform that hosts content and one that publishes it, and normal commercial activity doesn't collapse that distinction on its own. The takeaway Set the fashion-industry rivalry to one side and this is a fairly plain lesson in litigation risk. An injunction obtained on evidence that didn't hold up came with a financial undertaking that has now turned into a real liability. Brokers and risk managers advising clients tempted to use an injunction as a quick fix against a competitor have a concrete example of what a cross-undertaking in damages can cost when the underlying claim doesn't survive a trial. Related Stories What the £1.2 billion Arena TV fraud case means for FI and D&O insurers Appeal court trims broker's fraud payout over client money hole LATEST NEWS CYBER Cyber insurance prices have fallen for three years. Brokers aren't sure it can last CATASTROPHE & FLOOD Six West Midlands fires expose UK's wildfire modelling gap INSURANCE NEWS Lewes derailment puts rail liability cover under fresh scrutiny MARINE Court of Appeal curbs reinsurer for defence costs in $70 million Gulf tanker case LEGAL INSIGHTS Shein has just lost a huge lawsuit against Temu