Fast-fashion giant Shein has suffered a major legal setback after losing its copyright lawsuit against rival Temu in London, in a ruling that could have wider implications for online marketplaces that host thousands of independent sellers.
The High Court in London ruled on Thursday that Temu was not liable for alleged copyright infringements involving photographs of Shein clothing that appeared on its UK platform. The case centred on Shein’s accusation that Temu had allowed third-party sellers to use thousands of images taken from Shein’s website to market products on its own platform.
The dispute is the latest chapter in an increasingly bitter rivalry between two of the world’s biggest low-cost online shopping platforms. Shein, which built its global business around rapidly producing and selling inexpensive fashion directly to consumers, has faced growing competition from Temu, the marketplace operated by Chinese technology group PDD Holdings.
Temu emerged internationally in 2022 and quickly adopted an aggressive low-price, app-driven model, although its marketplace extends well beyond fashion. Its growth put it directly into competition with Shein for consumers looking for inexpensive products delivered directly from overseas suppliers.
The relationship between the two companies deteriorated into a series of legal and commercial battles. In the UK case, Shein accused Temu of enabling what it described as copyright infringement on an “industrial scale”, alleging that sellers on Temu had used its product photographs to promote goods, including products that Shein said were copies of its designs. Shein argued that Temu was more than a passive platform and had actively enabled sellers to benefit from material belonging to Shein.
Temu rejected that argument, maintaining that it was an intermediary hosting independent merchants and that those sellers, rather than Temu itself, were responsible for the listings appearing on the marketplace. It also challenged whether Shein actually owned the copyright in some of the photographs at issue.
The case ultimately became as much about the responsibility of digital platforms as it was about fashion photographs.
Judge Kelyn Bacon found that Temu had not authorised the alleged infringement and did not have the required knowledge or reason to believe that the specific photographs at issue infringed Shein’s copyright. Temu was therefore able to rely on the legal protection available to online hosts in the circumstances of the case.
The ruling is significant because a different outcome could have made major online marketplaces potentially responsible for vast amounts of content uploaded by independent sellers. Such a precedent could have forced platforms to carry out much more extensive checks on every product listing, photograph and piece of marketing material posted by third-party merchants.
Temu also won a counterclaim against Shein concerning product listings that Shein had sought to have removed. The court found that some of the takedown action was not justified because Shein did not hold the relevant copyright, with the amount of damages still to be determined.
Shein has criticised the judgment, saying it disagrees with what it described as the court’s “narrow interpretation of a complex and evolving area of law”. Temu declined to comment on the ruling.
The fight is not over. The companies are also locked in a separate UK competition dispute, with Temu bringing allegations against Shein under competition law. That case is scheduled for trial later in 2026.
The timing is particularly important for Shein. The company is preparing for a planned Hong Kong stock-market listing, with Reuters reporting that it is targeting a valuation of between $30 billion and $40 billion, substantially below its peak valuation of almost $100 billion in 2022. The company is also dealing with slowing growth and increasing pressure from Temu and changing international trade rules.
For South Africa, the case matters because Shein and Temu are no longer niche international shopping platforms. They have become a significant part of the country’s rapidly changing online retail market. Research by payments company Stitch found that 48.5% of South African online shoppers now buy from international low-cost platforms such as Temu, Shein and AliExpress, up sharply from their negligible presence just two years ago. Clothing and apparel is also the most popular online shopping category, with 78.1% of consumers buying clothing online.
That growth has put additional pressure on South African retailers, fashion businesses and smaller designers competing against international platforms that can offer extremely low prices and enormous product ranges.
The London judgment, however, does not automatically become law in South Africa. South African courts apply South African legislation, meaning the ruling should not be interpreted as giving Temu or any other marketplace blanket protection from copyright claims locally.
South Africa already has provisions dealing with intermediary and hosting liability under the Electronic Communications and Transactions Act. Section 75 provides a limitation of liability for qualifying service providers that host data supplied by users where they lack actual knowledge of infringement, are not aware of circumstances making infringement apparent, and act expeditiously after receiving a valid takedown notification. The law also says there is no general obligation on service providers to monitor everything they transmit or store.
That makes the principles being tested in the Shein-Temu case particularly relevant to South Africa, even though the British judgment is not binding on South African courts. Local marketplaces and international platforms operating in the country could face similar questions about when a platform is simply hosting content supplied by a seller and when its involvement becomes sufficiently active to attract liability.
For South African designers, photographers and fashion businesses, the dispute also highlights the importance of owning and documenting intellectual-property rights. The South African Copyright Act provides copyright owners with remedies including damages and interdicts where copyright has been infringed.
Ultimately, the Shein-Temu fight is about far more than two fast-fashion companies fighting over photographs. It is a test of who should carry responsibility when millions of products are uploaded by independent sellers to digital marketplaces: the individual seller who posts the material, or the platform that provides the technology, audience and infrastructure.
