'High risk' of consumers finding illegal products on Temu, says European Commission
The commission said on Monday that there was a "high risk" of consumers in the EU encountering illegal products on the e-commerce giant's platform.
Specifically, analysis of a mystery shopping exercise conducted by the commission found that consumers shopping on Temu were very likely to find non-compliant products, including baby toys and small electronics.
The statement is part of an investigation into the e-commerce giant under the commission's Digital Services Act (DSA), a new piece of legislation governing online content in the European Union.
It forces companies that run online platforms such as e-commerce websites to assess how likely consumers are to be exposed to dangerous or illegal products, and work to lessen the risk.
The commission said according to its analysis, a risk assessment carried out by Temu, which is owned by PDD Holdings, in October 2024 was "inaccurate" and "relying on general industry information rather than on specific details about its own marketplace".
Henna Virkkunen, executive vice-president for 'tech sovereignty, security and democracy', said: "We shop online because we trust that products sold in our Single Market are safe and comply with our rules.
"In our preliminary view, Temu is far from assessing risks for its users at the standards required by the Digital Services Act.
"Consumers' safety online is not negotiable in the EU - our laws, including the Digital Services Act, are the foundation for a better protection online and a safer and fairer digital Single Market for all Europeans."
The company could face a fine of up to 6% of its annual worldwide turnover if the commission ultimately decides its risk assessment does not meet the companies' obligations under the DSA.
The commission said officials would also continue investigating the company over other suspected breaches of the DSA such as using addictive design features and a lack of transparency on its algorithms.
The EU is trying to counter what it sees as a glut of cheap and potentially unsafe products from China flooding the single market.
Officials also sent a formal warning to Shein in May, saying the company's sales tactics fell foul of EU consumer protection law. Shein said it was engaging with the Commission to address concerns.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
RTÉ News
3 hours ago
- RTÉ News
Trump claims victory on trade - but EU had little choice
In many respects US President Donald Trump achieved his aims by introducing a swath of tariffs with America's main trading partners around the world. The European Union has a population of 448 million compared to the US which has 340 million. However, the US economy is larger. Many have been surprised at the way Donald Trump has appeared to be able to dictate terms to Europe. His announcement yesterday that he would commence the new tariff arrangements from 7 August appeared to be his decision with little input from the EU. President of the European Commission Ursula Von Der Leyen has defended the deal, which will see tariffs of 15% imposed on EU goods. There are two reasons why the EU did not want a full blown trade war with Mr Trump. Firstly, European businesses were opposed to a prolonged period of tit-for-tat tariffs with enormously damaging consequences. Secondly, if relations with Mr Trump soured, he could threaten to row back on defence commitments. The EU is highly reliant on the US for arm supplies, funding for NATO and military support for Ukraine. But looking at scale of tariffs imposed on other countries the EU's 15% does not seem too damaging compared to India's 25%, Canada's 35% and Switzerland's 39%. Most of the US' main trading partners have rates of 15% or 20%. The exception is the UK's 10% tariff. However, this is not an all-inclusive rate. In other words, other rates can be added to it. Nor does Britain have a written agreement capping pharmaceutical tariffs unlike the EU. It is worth bearing in mind that while tariffs on European goods go up, Mr Trump stated the EU would be "opening up their countries at zero tariffs" for US exports. Unanswered questions From the Irish point of view there are still many unanswered questions. There is no agreement on alcohol exports to the US. That sector was expected to be covered by a zero-for-zero tariff arrangement but that has not yet been confirmed. This is critical for Ireland's whiskey industry and the EU's wine exports. It seems clear that pharmaceuticals and computer chips will face tariffs of up to 15%, but the timing is still uncertain. Both are subject of so-called Section 232 investigations because Mr Trump believes the US' use of imports is a national security issue. Tánaiste Simon Harris said the tariffs for sectors under investigation will not become clear until those processes are concluded. For pharmaceuticals that is expected to happen in two weeks. But the fact that the EU-US agreement won't exceed 15% does provide some clarity for the industry. Bank of Ireland pointed out that drugs are relatively inelastic, which means if prices go up people still buy them because they are prescribed by doctors. The new swath of tariffs come at a time when the dollar has been weakening and making EU exports to the US more expensive at the worst possible time. Then there is the question of what this all means for the Irish economy. In March, the Department of Finance and the Economic Social Research Institute published research on the impact of tariffs on the Irish economy. It looks at a range of scenarios from tariffs of 10% to 25%. Based on that analysis, officials at the Department of Finance told business leaders yesterday that the economy would continue to expand, but at a slower pace than previously expected. Employment will grow but at a slower rate. The Government will now have to decide how all this will impact the Budget in October. But while Mr Trump may believe he has achieved his aims on tariffs, in the long run his actions carry the risk of higher inflation in the US and undermining the American economy.
Irish Independent
5 hours ago
- Irish Independent
Negotiation on EU-US trade deal continues, with tariffs pushed back for another week
This gives European Commission negotiators more time to clarify details of the new trade deal, as they try to extend the range of goods to which the 15pc rate will not apply. On Thursday, the commission said it had not been able to achieve a zero-for-zero carve-out for the drinks sector. France is already pressing for parts of the deal to be renegotiated. 'It's a stage and we won't stop here,' French foreign minister Jean-Noël Barrot told broadcaster France Info. 'We want new concessions, guarantees on wine and spirits, a readjustment, [and] a rebalancing on the service sector – in particular digital services.' Speaking after a meeting of the trade forum in Government Buildings, Tánaiste and Foreign Affairs Minister Simon Harris said it was Ireland's understanding that the EU's 15pc rate was fully inclusive – incorporating existing tariffs – unlike the UK's 10pc. Confirming that pharmaceuticals will remain at a zero per cent tariff until the White House completes a Section 232 investigation – which determines how specific imports will affect US national security – Mr Harris said he had been informed by Brussels that this was likely to conclude in about two weeks. 'Without a deal between the US and the EU, today would have seen 30pc tariffs introduced by President Trump on the EU, and significant counter-measures by the EU to the tune of around €90-odd billion,' he said. 'There's absolutely no doubt that would have been a moment of catastrophe in terms of our economic well-being as a country. We'd be in a very different and a much worse position, I think, if we were standing here today with no deal. 'You don't have to take my word for that if you just see the executive order last night and all of the tariffs levelled in other countries, including countries that didn't have deals.' On Thursday night, Mr Trump signed an executive order to introduce tariffs on more than 60 countries. Most of these will take effect on August 7, but a 35pc levy on some exports from Canada came into effect immediately. The highest rates were slapped on Syria, Laos and Myanmar, which now face tariffs of about 40pc. A rate of 35pc was applied in Switzerland. The country has a big trade deficit with the US, reaching $38bn (€33bn) last year, but the White House implied that Switzerland was also being penalised for its pharma industry. ADVERTISEMENT US trade representative Jamieson Greer told BloombergTelevision: 'They ship enormous amounts of pharmaceuticals to our country. We want to be making pharmaceuticals in our country.' As usual, the extended deadline gives these countries more time to negotiate a deal with the US before the tariffs are applied. If introduced, however, it will mean the US is applying an average rate six times higher than when former president Joe Biden was in office. Stephen Innes of SPI Asset Management said: 'The average US tariff jumps from 13.3pc to 15.2pc, a seismic shift from the 2.3pc average before Trump retook office.' In a briefing to its members after the trade forum, Ibec pointed out that clarity was still needed on precisely what goods would drop to a zero tariff after August 7. 'Goods that may benefit from zero tariffs or zero-for-zero tariffs ... (including aircraft and component parts, certain chemicals, certain generic medicines, semiconductor equipment, selected agricultural products, natural resources, and critical raw materials) will require the final EU-US joint statement to confirm which specific HS codes will be exempt,' Ibec's Danny McCoy said. 'Negotiations on additional zero-for-zero arrangements not covered by the joint statement may continue in the weeks ahead.'
Irish Examiner
10 hours ago
- Irish Examiner
Trump's global tariff agenda puts Ireland's pharmaceutical industry at serious risk
The whole world is in thrall to the whims of Donald Trump's tariff agenda, as it has been since the 47th president of the United States' swearing-in last January. We've learned a few uncomfortable truths along the way. Much of the early outcry from America's allies and trading partners surrounded the lack of economic logic to the imposition of tariffs – which are effectively a tax for Americans on foreign products, in theory making them less attractive to US consumers and heightening the allure of their own domestic suppliers. Critics said that the new regime would disrupt the world economy needlessly and perhaps bring about a global recession. That may well come to pass. The problem is that in this stand-off America has the greater wherewithal in terms of raw economic power. It holds the cards as Trump himself might say. And nations worldwide are beginning to fall into line, the EU just the latest after agreeing to a blanket 15% tariff on goods and services going forward. After President of the European Commission Ursula von der Leyen and US President Donald Trump agreed the trade deal, the spin is that the pain of those tariffs is worth it in order to avoid a global trade war. Also, 15% is better than 30% or worse, is the thinking. Photo:The spin is that the pain of those tariffs is worth it in order to avoid a global trade war. Also, 15% is better than 30% or worse, is the thinking. Whether that represents capitulation in the face of bullyboy tactics, given that little or nothing has been asked of the US in return, is a separate conversation. Ireland's pharmaceutical industry Here in Ireland we have a bigger problem though, and that problem is the pharmaceutical industry. That industry contributes massively to the economy here via billions of euro in corporation tax contributions, with about 90 companies employing 50,000 people in highly-paid roles. A total 30,000 of those jobs are with American firms. Should foreign pharmaceutical concerns exit Ireland the impact on the country would be catastrophic. The industry globally had pleaded with Trump for it to be exempted from any tariff regime, ostensibly for altruistic reasons – that lifesaving medicines shouldn't be subject to capricious taxation. At an EU level, the industry asked that the bloc not apply reciprocal tariffs, one wish that has at least been granted. Pfizer is one of the massive American pharmaceutical companies holding bases in Ireland, in this case Cork. File picture: Dan Linehan Oddly enough, in Trump's world of permanent grievance where everyone has been making a sucker of the United States for decades, the outsize presence the US pharmaceutical industry holds in Ireland is one situation on which he indisputably has a legitimate point. Drug prices in the US can retail for as much as five times what an EU citizen would pay. Meanwhile, American pharma firms make a pretty penny avoiding American tax by basing themselves here. Trump's protectionist agenda demands that those jobs and companies should return home. The Government has been worrying about and planning for a worst-case scenario in terms of tariffs on pharmaceuticals for months. Reaction from the pharma companies But what of the pharma industry itself? The official line from the Irish Pharmaceutical Healthcare Association (IPHA), the industry's lobby group here, is that it is reviewing the announcements coming out of Washington as and when they happen 'as key implications for the pharmaceutical sector remain uncertain'. A stance it's hard to argue with given the whole world has grown used to the haphazard nature of the Trump administration's demands. The European Federation of Pharmaceutical Industries and Associations (EFPIA) notes that tariffs are 'a blunt instrument that will disrupt supply chains, impact on investment in research and development, and ultimately harm patient access to medicines on both sides of the Atlantic'. It added that if the goal is to rebalance trade and ensure a 'fairer distribution' of how pharmaceutical innovation is financed, then 'there are more effective means than tariffs that would help'. Impact on pharma in Ireland The IDA, the body with prime responsibility for attracting foreign investment to Irish shores, says of the pharma implications that it 'welcomes' the deal made between Europe and the US, arguing it provides 'much-needed certainty for Irish, European and American businesses who together represent the most integrated trading relationship in the world'. 'We are very much reliant (on the US market), there's no arguing with that,' says one industry insider. Last year a massive €44bn in pharmaceutical products were exported directly from Ireland to the US. 'But when you stand back €100bn was exported globally. So half went to America, but it's not like all business went there, though it is certainly the biggest partner,' says the source. That doesn't mean that those massive American companies holding bases here – MSD, Pfizer, ELI Lilly, Johnson and Johnson etc – are about to up sticks on the back of the new tariff regime. 'They are not going to leave today or tomorrow, no. But it could definitely impact future investment decisions,' the source says. One of the problems is that a great deal of uncertainty still surrounds the 15% tariff agreement, particularly with regard to pharma. One of the Eli Lilly production buildings at its state-of-the-art facility in Dunderrow, Kinsale, Co Cork. For starters, most people concerned thought that the pharmaceutical industry wasn't to be included in the deal. Then about two hours after the deal was agreed European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen said it would be included, a point Trump appeared to back up. The following day the White House produced a 'fact sheet' describing how the new regime would work, and affirming the 15% rate for pharma. Except that the same sheet stated that the European Union would pay the tariff – which isn't how tariffs work. Then there is the Section 232 investigation which the US Department of Commerce initiated into the pharma industry in April – aiming to establish if how the pharmaceutical system worldwide currently functions impacts negatively on the US from a national security standpoint. Should the answer arrived at be a 'yes', then additional tariffs on pharma may well follow (such investigations typically take a minimum of six months to conclude, so we'll probably get an answer sometime towards the end of the year). 'Pharma plans in the long-term,' says Aidan Meagher, tax partner specialising in life sciences with consultants EY, noting that most pharma manufacturers will have been planning for this scenario for months and will have frontloaded stock into the American market, thus negating immediate impacts in the near term. He says that companies will be likely looking at 'dual sourcing' initiatives, supplying the American market from within the US itself and using Irish operations for its trade around the rest of the globe. 'Ireland needs to up its game' But Meagher says that it would be 'remiss' of Ireland, and the pharma industry here, to take a 'wait and see' approach, perhaps with the supposition that Trump's policies will last for the remaining three-and-a-half years of his term, and no longer. 'It is all about the next investment. A lot of these drugs only have patent protection for a certain life or longevity. Ireland needs to maintain investment and to incentivise the right kind of activity in terms of attracting that innovation,' he says. That means thinking outside the box in terms of tax credits for research and development, and improvements to infrastructure, particularly housing, Meagher says, areas in which we are notably lagging behind in terms of international competition. But he argues that the situation is far from a doomsday scenario. 'It's not as simple as that, it's a whole range of business factors that need to be considered – it's all about impacts for specific companies,' he says. 'It's not all necessarily doom and gloom. Companies have had plenty of time to consider this. And pharma companies are long-term thinkers. Ireland has had just two issues with the FDA (the US food and drug administration, responsible for approving new drugs) in its history. "The country has a strong reputation. These countries have invested significantly and Ireland is the owner of a lot of valuable intellectual property.' But it's certainly not a time to be complacent, Meagher argues. 'We have dropped down the competitiveness radar, and our competitors now aren't in the EU – they're in Switzerland, Singapore and the US itself. We need to be a top competitor for inward investment, and R&D and infrastructure will be critical. That is where Ireland needs to up its game.'
