The European Commission confirmed the penalty on Thursday, saying the Chinese e-commerce company did not properly identify and manage risks linked to products sold to EU consumers.

The case sits under the Digital Services Act, a law that governs large online platforms.

The Commission opened its investigation in 2024, shortly after Temu expanded further across Europe. It followed complaints from the European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) and 17 of its national members.

Regulators said those complaints pointed to unsafe goods circulating widely on the platform.

Officials also carried out mystery shopping tests. A high number of phone chargers failed basic safety checks, while several baby toys also contained chemicals above legal limits or created choking risks.

The EU said Temu did not go far enough in assessing how its systems might increase those risks. It pointed to product recommendation tools and influencer-linked promotions that could push more unsafe goods into view.

Henna Virkkunen, a European Commission official responsible for technology, criticised the company’s approach.

She said “the company’s assessment of its risks leaves regulators, users, and the public in the dark about the true scale of potential harm posed by illegal products sold on Temu,”

“Now it is time for Temu to comply with the law,” she added.

The Commission said the platform must now submit a compliance plan by August 28, 2026. Officials will review the plan two months after submission to decide if Temu has met its obligations.

Temu responded to the decision and rejected parts of the findings. A spokesperson said: “Temu respects the objectives of the Digital Services Act and the need for clear, consistent rules across the digital economy. However, we disagree with the European Commission’s decision and consider the fine to be disproportionate,”

The company added: “The decision relates to our first DSA assessment in 2024 and does not reflect the current state of our systems. Temu engaged constructively with the Commission throughout the process and has since taken further steps to strengthen risk assessment, platform governance, and user protection,”

Temu also said it would continue to work with regulators and consider its options.

The penalty is the second enforcement action under the Digital Services Act. It is also the largest fine issued so far under the law. The first was against X, which faced a penalty over transparency issues.

The law requires large platforms to identify and reduce systemic risks. It also demands stronger oversight of illegal or harmful products, along with clearer information on how recommendation systems operate.

Beyond Temu, the EU investigation also revealed issues about low-cost imports from China. Officials have been placing focus on large online marketplaces as part of trade and consumer protection efforts.

Other platforms are also under review. Shein and AliExpress are both facing separate investigations linked to unsafe or counterfeit goods.

Meanwhile, JD.com is under examination over its planned purchase of German retailer Ceconomy, with regulators questioning whether foreign subsidies may distort competition.

There is also a policy debate inside the EU, with officials discussing new trade and industrial measures aimed at balancing competition with Chinese e-commerce firms and protecting local businesses.

The issue has also reached the global level. In the United States, Temu stopped shipping directly from China after a policy change closed a duty exemption on low-value imports.

The probe, announced on Thursday, falls under the Digital Services Act, which requires large platforms to protect against harmful and illegal content or face heavy penalties.

EU officials say they are investigating how the app handles risks such as child grooming, exposure to drugs and other illegal goods, and weak account protections for younger users.

“From grooming ⁠and exposure to illegal products to account settings that undermine minors’ safety, Snapchat appears to have overlooked that the Digital Services Act demands high safety standards for all users,” EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen said in a statement.

At the centre of the case is whether Snapchat has put in place enough precautions to stop adults from contacting or exploiting minors. Regulators are also examining how easily illegal goods such as drugs, vapes and alcohol can be promoted or sold through the platform.

The European Commission said Snapchat’s content moderation tools may not be strong enough to prevent such activity.

It also spoke about the company’s age verification system, which largely relies on users declaring their own age, as well as default settings that could leave younger users exposed.

Another issue under review is the platform’s design, including features regulators describe as “dark patterns”, which may make it harder for users to report problems or understand privacy settings.

Snapchat, owned by Snap Inc., said it is working with regulators and reviewing its systems to ensure child safety and general protection.

“We have fully cooperated with the Commission to date – engaging proactively, transparently and working in good faith to meet the DSA’s high safety standards – and we will continue to do so throughout this ‌investigation,” a spokesperson said.

The Commission has also taken over an earlier investigation by Dutch authorities into the alleged sale of vapes to minors on the platform.

Snapchat has about 97 million monthly users across the EU, most of them teenagers and young adults. Regulators believe this makes the platform particularly vulnerable to abuse, including cases where adults pose as minors to target younger users.

Under the Digital Services Act, companies found in breach can be fined up to 6% of their global annual revenue. With Snap reporting about $5.2 billion in revenue last year, any penalty could run into hundreds of millions of dollars.

Generally, investigations regarding child safety and other aspects are already underway into TikTok, Meta Platforms, and AliExpress, among others, as regulators step up enforcement of the law, hence, this isn’t limited to Snapchat.

Brussels has made known it wants the Digital Services Act to set the standard for online safety, especially when it comes to protecting children.

Experts warn that the type of content they view can influence behaviour, mental health, and sleep.

Data from The Marketing Heaven shows TikTok is a huge part of teen life in the U.S. and globally. New trends, such as #Pingtok, chroming challenges, and “Pink Tote Lid” confession videos, have increased exposure to risky or emotionally intense content.

“This isn’t passive media consumption,” says Brian Futral, head of Content Marketing at The Marketing Heaven. “It’s immersive, algorithm-driven exposure. When teens are spending nearly two hours a day inside one recommendation engine, the nature of that content matters more than ever.”

#Pingtok and Chroming Challenges

In early 2026, #Pingtok gained attention as teenagers created stylised videos showing drug use.

Futral explains, “When risky behavior is framed in soft lighting and trending audio, it stops looking dangerous. It starts looking aspirational. Algorithms do not distinguish between healthy engagement and harmful engagement. They amplify what keeps people watching.”

Resurfacing chroming challenges involve inhaling toxic fumes, sometimes with fatal consequences. Meanwhile, “Pink Tote Lid” videos feature teens sharing personal challenges.

Some see these as community-building. Others argue they turn private experiences into public performance.

Futral adds, “TikTok has become both a stage and a therapist for some teens. The line between connection and exposure is blurring. When validation is measured in views and comments, vulnerability can turn into performance. When you’re on the app for 50-plus hours a month, trends shape identity. That is especially powerful during adolescence.”

Regulatory and Legal Attention

In 2026, TikTok, Meta, and YouTube are being sued in the U.S. and Europe for features like infinite scroll and autoplay, which encourage addictive behaviour. The European Commission cited these features under the Digital Services Act.

TikTok now sets a default 60-minute daily limit on screen time for users under 18, though it can be bypassed. Futral notes, “The fact that platforms are pre-setting limits tells you the industry recognises a problem. We’ve moved from debating whether there’s an issue to debating how big it is.”

Advice for Parents and Brands

Parents should focus on content teens see, not just screen time spent on TikTok. “You can’t just ask how long your teen is on TikTok. You have to ask what TikTok is feeding them,” says Futral.

Brands and creators are under pressure too. “If brands contribute to harmful or exploitative trends, they will face backlash. Sustainable growth in 2026 means understanding digital well-being as part of strategy, not a PR afterthought,” Futral adds.

A 2025 CDC/NIH study found U.S. teens with higher non-school screen time were more likely to report sleep problems, anxiety, and lower physical activity.

The WHO reported that problematic social media use among adolescents rose from 7% in 2018 to 11% in 2022. Advocacy groups say TikTok has not done enough to address these risks.

The alliance of women’s rights groups, parent advocates and political organisations are accusing the Elon Musk-owned services of breaching app store regulations and exposing women and children to abuse. 

In the open letters released on Wednesday, the campaigners say the apps are being used to generate illegal and degrading material at scale.

At the centre of the campaign are groups including UltraViolet, the National Organisation for Women, MoveOn and ParentsTogether Action. They argue that the continued availability of X and Grok on app stores gives legitimacy to tools that are being misused to create sexualised images without consent.

“We are really imploring Apple and Google to take this extremely seriously,” Jenna Sherman, UltraViolet’s campaign director, said ahead of the letters’ publication. “They are enabling a system in which thousands, if not tens of thousands, of people, particularly women and children, are being sexually abused through the help of their own app stores.”

The issue got worse after X was flooded around the new year with highly realistic images of women and minors, many of them sexualised. While X later adjusted Grok so that images it creates or edits are not automatically shared publicly, tests carried out this week showed the chatbot could still generate bikini-clad versions of people’s photos on request.

Outside the United States, regulators from Malaysia and Indonesia became the first countries to ban Grok in January 2026 due to the creation of sexually explicit and non-consensual images. 

In Europe, the Commission has ordered X to preserve Grok-related records until the end of 2026 as part of an investigation under the Digital Services Act. Authorities in the UK and several other countries have also demanded explanations over how the tool is being used.

Whereas, in Washington, three Democratic senators have written to Apple and Google, urging them to remove X and Grok from their app stores and warning of the risks they project on women and children if the apps remain available.

Some organisations are no longer waiting for regulators or tech firms to decide. This week, the American Federation of Teachers announced it was leaving X, calling Grok’s Al-generated child images “the last straw.” For campaigners, that decision is being held up as proof that the issue has crossed a line.

Responses from the companies involved have been limited. X did not reply to requests for comment. Its parent company, xAI, responded to criticism with the words, “Legacy Media Lies.” Apple and Google have also declined to comment publicly, despite repeated requests.

Sherman said the moment is a test of credibility for the app store operators. While both companies usually stress their commitment to child safety, she argued that their handling of X and Grok would show “what their values actually are in practice.”

In its preliminary findings released on Friday, the Commission said Facebook, Instagram, and TikTok may have placed “burdensome procedures and tools” that make it difficult for independent researchers to examine how these platforms influence public life, health, and safety. 

It described such access as “an essential transparency obligation under the DSA, as it provides public scrutiny into the potential impact of platforms on our physical and mental health.”

Meta and TikTok both denied wrongdoing; a Meta spokesperson told Reuters, “We have introduced changes to our content reporting options, appeals process, and data access tools since the DSA came into force and are confident that these solutions match what is required under the law in the EU.” 

TikTok, however, maintained that while it supports transparency, regulatory overlaps complicate compliance. “But requirements to ease data safeguards place the DSA and GDPR in direct tension,” a company spokesperson said. 

“If it is not possible to fully comply with both, we urge regulators to provide clarity on how these obligations should be reconciled.”

The DSA, which came fully into effect in August 2023, imposes strict obligations on “Very Large Online Platforms” such as Meta and TikTok. These platforms are expected to give researchers access to public data, allow users to report illegal content like hate speech or terrorism, and disclose how their algorithms make content recommendations.

The Commission said Meta’s Facebook and Instagram failed to offer a “user-friendly and easily accessible” system for flagging harmful content, including child sexual abuse and terrorist material. It also accused Meta of using “deceptive interface designs” that could confuse or discourage users from reporting such posts. 

TikTok’s data-sharing framework was similarly criticised for being unreliable and incomplete, limiting research into online harms.

If these violations are confirmed after further consultations, both companies could face fines of up to 6% of their global annual revenue, a penalty that could cost Meta more than $7 billion based on its 2024 earnings.

Despite the serious implications, the findings are preliminary. The companies have the opportunity to respond and address the breaches before any final decision is made. The Meta spokesperson added that the company would “continue to negotiate with the Commission.”

The probe forms part of the EU’s focus on Big Tech, which has already placed X (formerly Twitter), Google, YouTube, and Amazon under investigation for issues ranging from disinformation to product safety.

Brussels is pressing these platforms, classified as Very Large Online Platforms (VLOPs) due to their reach of over 45 million EU users, to prove that they are taking real steps to shield children from illegal and harmful content. This includes exposure to drugs, vaping products, and material that promotes eating disorders.

The EU request centres on the companies’ age verification tools and internal measures for restricting harmful material regarding child safety. Officials also want explanations on how their algorithms handle potentially addictive recommendation systems and how app stores manage access to gambling, sexual content, and so-called “nudify” applications.

“Today, alongside national authorities in the member states, we are assessing whether the measures taken so far by the platforms are indeed protecting children,” said EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen.

The case is part of an enforcement under the DSA, the EU’s digital law designed to make tech giants more accountable for content circulating on their platforms. The Commission has issued formal Requests for Information (RFIs), a step that could lead to full investigations and fines reaching up to 6% of global turnover if breaches are confirmed.

Beyond enforcement, the EU is exploring policy changes, including setting a bloc-wide “digital age of majority” that could restrict minors’ access to certain online services, an idea inspired by Australia’s under-16 social media ban.

In the United States, several states such as Utah and Arkansas now require parental consent for minors to use social media. Meanwhile, within Europe, Denmark is pushing for a national social media ban for users under 15, while France and Spain have publicly backed tighter digital age limits.

The EU child safety investigation follows its child protection guidelines published in July 2025, which laid out clearer expectations for compliance with the DSA.

The General Court in Luxembourg ruled that regulators relied on the wrong legal procedure to calculate the levy, which currently stands at 0.05% of each company’s annual global net income. 

The methodology, judges said, should have been set through a delegated act rather than through implementing decisions. In other words, the Commission acted outside the precise legal framework of the DSA.

The judgment provides the Commission with a year to correct its approach, but importantly, it does not oblige regulators to refund the 2023 fees paid by Meta and TikTok. Both companies had argued that the formula was disproportionate and unfair, especially for platforms with large user bases but tighter profit margins.

In its reaction, the Commission downplayed the impact of the decision. A spokesperson stated: “The Court’s ruling requires a purely formal correction on the procedure. We now have 12 months to adopt a delegated act to formalise the fee calculation and adopt new implementing decisions.” 

Officials stressed that the ruling does not sabotage the principle of the supervisory fee itself, nor the amounts already collected.

The DSA, which came into force in November 2022, obliges very large online platforms to combat illegal and harmful content or risk fines of up to 6% of their global turnover. Compliance monitoring is expensive, and the supervisory fee is meant to fund that effort. 

The size of the fee is tied to two key factors: the average number of monthly active users and the financial results of the company in the previous year.

While Meta and TikTok led the challenge, other major platforms also fall under the DSA’s obligations. These include Amazon, Apple, Google, Microsoft, Booking.com, Snapchat, Pinterest, and Elon Musk’s X platform. All are classified as “Very Large Online Platforms” because they exceed the threshold of 45 million active monthly users in the EU.

The ruling does not cancel the supervisory fee, but it does underline the need for procedural accuracy in the EU’s enforcement of digital rules. Analysts say the result may complicate future enforcement if other companies decide to contest the Commission’s methods.

Following a mystery shopping operation led by the Commission, inspectors found that a number of items sold on Temu, including baby toys and small electronics, did not meet EU safety standards. Many of these items were direct threats to users, such as choking hazards, electrocution risks, and potential exposure to toxic substances. 

These findings were supported by the European consumer watchdog BEUC, which has long raised alarms about the unchecked inflow of unsafe imports via online platforms.

The Commission concluded that Temu’s October 2024 risk assessment was both flawed and superficial. Instead of analysing data specific to its own operations, Temu allegedly relied on vague, industry-level information to justify compliance. That approach, the Commission noted, is not acceptable for a platform with the scale and influence of Temu.

“The evidence showed that there is a high risk for consumers in the EU to encounter illegal products on the platform,” the Commission stated. “Specifically, the analysis of a mystery shopping exercise found that consumers shopping on Temu are very likely to find non-compliant products among the offer, such as baby toys and small electronics.”

Temu, which is classified as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the DSA, is subject to stricter regulatory expectations, particularly around product safety, algorithm transparency, and user protections. These platforms are not only required to remove harmful content and goods quickly but must also actively mitigate systemic risks on their platforms.

If the preliminary findings are upheld, Temu could face a fine of up to 6% of its global annual turnover, a penalty that could easily exceed $1.5 billion, given the financial muscle of its parent company, PDD Holdings. This would represent one of the most forceful enforcement actions under the DSA since its implementation.

In response to the Commission’s findings, Temu in an official statement said, “We will continue to cooperate fully with the Commission.”

Before now, EU also flagged the platform’s gamified shopping experience, pointing to potentially manipulative features such as fake discounts, time-limited rewards, and addictive design patterns aimed at encouraging compulsive buying. 

These dark patterns, tactics designed to nudge users into decisions against their best interest, are being investigated for violating transparency and ethical standards under EU law.

Furthermore, regulators are probing how Temu’s recommendation systems work. The core question is whether the platform gives users the option to receive non-profiled suggestions, an essential requirement under the DSA designed to protect user privacy and prevent algorithmic exploitation.

The EU’s investigation into Temu puts it in the same regulatory spotlight as other China-based platforms such as Shein, AliExpress, and Wish, all of which have been warned for allowing the sale of unsafe products and employing manipulative design features.

In parallel, EU policymakers are also debating the removal of the €150 duty-free threshold for imported parcels. This change would hit Temu’s core business model hard, as the platform thrives on high-volume, low-cost deliveries that currently escape import taxes.

For now, Temu has a limited window to respond to the Commission’s findings before a final decision is made. 

At the heart of the issue is a supervisory fee introduced under the Digital Services Act (DSA), which came into force in 2022. 

The law requires major online platforms, 19 in total, including Meta, TikTok, Google, and Amazon, to pay 0.05% of their global net income. 

The money funds the European Commission’s monitoring of platform compliance with the DSA’s rules. But how the Commission arrived at each company’s bill is now under investigation.

Meta’s counsel, Assimakis Komninos, made it clear that the issue wasn’t about dodging regulation but about the logic, or lack thereof, behind the numbers. 

“The provisions in the Digital Services Act, or DSA, go against the letter and the spirit of the law, are totally untransparent with black boxes and have led to completely implausible and absurd results,” he told the five-judge panel in Luxembourg.

He objected the Commission’s choice to base the fee on the parent company’s revenue rather than that of the local subsidiary, a move he said distorted the true financial footprint of the entity being regulated. “Meta still does not know how the fee was calculated,” Komninos said.

Represented by lawyer Bill Batchelor, TikTok rejected the entire fee structure as inaccurate and discriminatory. “What has happened here is anything but fair or proportionate. The fee has used inaccurate figures and discriminatory methods,” Batchelor told the court.

According to him, TikTok’s supervisory fee was unfairly inflated by a method that counts the same users twice, once for using mobile, and again for desktop. 

“It inflates TikTok’s fees, requires it to pay, not just for itself, but for other platforms and disregards the excessive fee cap,” he argued. He also accused the Commission of overreaching by basing the cap on group-wide profits instead of earnings by the regulated unit.

In response, the Commission stood its ground. Lawyer Lorna Armati argued that the financial strength of a group cannot be divorced from the regulatory burden of its platforms. 

“When a group has consolidated accounts, it is the financial resources of the group as a whole that are available to that provider in order to bear the burden of the fee,” she told the court. 

Armati insisted that the process was legally sound and transparent enough for companies to understand. “The providers had sufficient information to understand why and how the Commission used the numbers that it did and there is no question of any breach of their right to be heard now, unequal treatment.”

The court is expected to rule in 2026 and the result would impact how the EU funds regulatory enforcement, and determine whether Big Tech continues to foot the bill under current terms. 

If Meta and TikTok succeed, it might force the Commission back to the drawing board, possibly lightening the financial load for other global platforms doing business in Europe.

The cases are officially registered as T-55/24 Meta Platforms Ireland v Commission and T-58/24 TikTok Technology v Commission.