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During proceedings, Shein’s legal team said Temu had withdrawn part of its defence covering almost 2,300 disputed photographs.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. 

In a letter addressed to Perplexity CEO Aravind Srinivas, the BBC accused the company of scraping its online material without consent and warned of possible legal consequences if its demands were not met.

Specifically, the BBC is asking for the deletion of all copies of its content used for training purposes, an end to the practice, and a proposal for financial compensation. Failure to comply, it says, could lead to an injunction.

This escalation places Perplexity at the centre of a deepening rift between traditional media outlets and tech companies leveraging journalistic content to power artificial intelligence systems.

“The BBC’s letter outlines a potential injunction unless Perplexity halts its content scraping activities, purges existing data from its models, and presents a proposal for financial compensation,” reported Financial Times, which had access to the communication.

Perplexity’s reaction was quick as it said in a statement also quoted by FT, “The BBC’s claims are manipulative and opportunistic,” adding that the broadcaster “has a fundamental misunderstanding of technology, the internet and intellectual property law.”

This isn’t the first time Perplexity has drawn the ire of publishers. In October 2024, The New York Times served the company with a cease-and-desist notice over similar allegations. The paper demanded a full stop to the use of its articles in AI training and sought answers on how Perplexity bypassed anti-scraping mechanisms.

Other major publishers such as Forbes, Wired, and Axel Springer have had similar complaints. While Perplexity insists it is indexing publicly accessible content rather than scraping it for training, companies are not convinced.

To manage the case, Perplexity launched a Publishers Program in mid-2024, offering revenue-sharing arrangements to selected media outlets.

Among the early participants are TIME, Der Spiegel, The Texas Tribune, and Fortune. These partners receive a share of ad revenue whenever their content appears in responses generated by the platform.

We don’t know yet if the BBC was ever approached to join the scheme—or declined.

The broadcaster’s demand is a defensive legal move which stresses the need for a transparent and enforceable licensing structure for how AI firms use journalistic content.

Perplexity, which is backed by high-profile investors including Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, continues to defend its operations. The company maintains it is not infringing on intellectual property rights and blames the issue on misinterpretations of how its system works.