Shein accused Temu of using thousands of its product photographs to sell copied versions of Shein-branded clothing on Temu’s platform. 

The company told the court that Temu tried to benefit from Shein’s market position by reproducing images created by Shein employees.

“This was an attempt to steal a march on an existing participant in the market, and Temu has sought to obtain, we say, an unfair advantage,” Shein’s lawyer Benet Brandreth said in court.

The trial is expected to run for two weeks and is part of a case between both companies across several countries, including the United States.

During proceedings, Shein’s legal team said Temu had withdrawn part of its defence covering almost 2,300 disputed photographs. Brandreth compared the decision to “the defendant waiting to see if the witnesses will turn up, only to plead guilty”.

Temu denied the allegations and argued that Shein’s lawsuit was not simply about protecting copyright. Its lawyers said the case was aimed at slowing down a rival that has grown rapidly in global online retail.

Temu, owned by PDD Holdings, has also filed a counterclaim against Shein. The company is seeking damages after Shein secured a court injunction that forced thousands of Temu product listings offline.

At the centre of the counter-claim is Temu’s accusation that Shein tied suppliers into exclusive agreements, making it harder for competitors to access manufacturers. That competition law dispute is expected to go to trial next year.

The court case is happening at the same time that both companies are facing pressure from regulators in Europe and the United States. Authorities have increased investigation over supplier treatment, product safety, labour standards and the flood of low-cost parcels entering Western markets.

Temu is currently under investigation in the European Union over possible breaches of product safety regulations. Shein, meanwhile, is still being questioned about labour practices within its supply chain as it works towards a possible London stock market listing.

The companies have built huge international businesses by selling ultra-cheap fashion, accessories and household goods directly to shoppers online. Their rapid growth relied heavily on customs exemptions for low-value imports, which helped keep prices low.

That advantage has started to get weaker. The United States removed its de minimis customs exemption for low-value e-commerce parcels in 2025, increasing costs for retailers shipping directly from China. 

The European Union is also preparing to end similar exemptions in July 2026, a move that could affect the expansion plans of both companies.

The issue has already spread beyond Britain. Shein sued Temu in the United States last year over alleged copyright infringement, while Temu later filed its own case accusing Shein of disrupting its marketplace through what it described as “unwarranted notices”.

Although the London case focuses on copyrighted photographs and copied designs, the result could stretch further. 

The commission said businesses must seek approval where a merger or acquisition meets the thresholds set under the Federal Competition and Consumer Protection Act (FCCPA) 2018.

According to the FCCPC, the law gives it power to review transactions, approve them with or without conditions, or block them where necessary.

It said the requirement covers several forms of business combinations. These include share purchases, asset acquisitions, joint ventures and other arrangements that fall within the legal definition of a merger.

The commission explained that prior notification allows it to examine whether a proposed deal could weaken competition in any market in Nigeria or create public interest issues.

It added that the process also helps regulators track market developments and understand how competition is changing across industries.

The FCCPC urged businesses and their advisers to approach the commission early if a planned transaction may require notification.

It said early engagement, including pre-notification consultations where needed, can give parties more certainty, speed up reviews and help them meet legal obligations.

The regulator also issued a warning on non-compliance.

“The FCCPC emphasises that failure to notify a notifiable transaction constitutes a contravention of the FCCPA and shall attract stiff penalties and other enforcement actions.”

It advised parties to take all necessary steps before implementing transactions that fall within its jurisdiction.

The commission asked stakeholders seeking clarification on the mergers and acquisitions regulations to contact the FCCPC or visit its website.

It added that it is fully committed to promoting fair competition, protecting consumers and supporting a transparent business environment in Nigeria.

The Lazio Regional Administrative Court confirmed on Tuesday that Amazon restricted competition in Italy’s e-commerce logistics sector. 

However, it ruled that the Italian Antitrust Authority (AGCM) had wrongly applied a discretionary 50% surcharge to the original figure. The judges said the regulator failed to adequately justify why Amazon’s global turnover should trigger such an increase.

Although the court did not provide a revised figure, removing the surcharge would bring the penalty closer to €750 million, according to calculations cited by Reuters. Amazon has yet to respond to the ruling.

The fine, handed down in December 2021, was one of the toughest sanctions ever imposed on a U.S. tech giant in Europe. Regulators accused Amazon of favouring its own logistics service, Fulfilment by Amazon (FBA), at the expense of independent providers. 

Sellers who chose FBA were reportedly rewarded with better visibility and access to Prime benefits, tilting the playing field in Amazon’s favour.

The court’s decision preserves the core finding of Amazon being engaged in anti-competitive issues. What it does change is the financial weight of the punishment. 

In striking out the surcharge, the ruling exposes a weakness in how competition regulators calculate penalties against multinational corporations with revenues that far exceed the scale of their local operations.

Across Europe, Amazon is still facing some issues. Authorities in Germany, France and at the European Commission have launched similar investigations, many centred on platform self-preferencing, data use, and unfair treatment of third-party sellers.

The case reveals that European regulators are determined to hold Big Tech accountable, and applying financial penalties in proportion to global tech revenues is still legally and politically complex.

The case centres on arrangements between Google and the two largest telecommunications providers in Australia, Telstra and Optus. 

Between late 2019 and early 2021, both companies agreed to pre-install Google Search on Android devices they sold. In exchange, Google shared a slice of advertising revenue with the telcos. These exclusive deals meant rival search engines had little to no access to millions of mobile users.

The Australian Competition and Consumer Commission (ACCC) said the conduct breached competition law. Google has admitted that the agreements had a huge impact on market rivals and promised not to repeat them. 

The regulator and Google have jointly recommended the A$55 million penalty to the Federal Court, which will make the final decision on whether the fine is appropriate.

“Today’s outcome created the potential for millions of Australians to have greater search choice in the future, and for competing search providers to gain meaningful exposure to Australian consumers,” said ACCC Chair Gina Cass-Gottlieb.

Regulators worldwide are tightening their belts when it comes to large technology firms, and Australia has taken a particularly aggressive stance. 

From forcing Google and Meta to pay local publishers for news content to challenging Apple and Google’s app store dominance in a case brought by Fortnite-maker Epic Games, Canberra has consistently objected against Big Tech. 

More recently, YouTube was added to the list of social platforms barred from admitting users under 16.

For Google, this fine adds to a list of regulatory setbacks in the country. Still, the company has sought to present the resolution as constructive. 

A spokesperson said Google was “pleased to resolve the ACCC’s concerns which involved provisions that haven’t been in our commercial agreements for some time,” adding that Android device makers would now have “more flexibility to pre-load browsers and search apps.”

Telstra and Optus, both of which have cooperated with the investigation, have also signed undertakings not to renew or enter similar deals with Google since 2024. Their decision opens the door for other search providers to compete for pre-installation space on Android devices.

The ACCC noted that the case arrives at a moment when artificial intelligence is changing the way people search for information. This creates new opportunities for rivals to challenge Google’s supremacy, if they are given fair access to the market.