Shein v Temu: The Cross-Suits Explained, From Takedown Notices to the London Ruling

Shein and Temu sell to the same shoppers, source from many of the same Chinese factories and have spent almost four years suing each other. The fight has run through federal courts in Illinois, Massachusetts and Washington DC, and through the High Court in London, where in August 2026 Shein lost a copyright trial it had started and was found liable to compensate Temu. Strip away the headlines and most of the cases turn on one tool every fashion brand uses: the takedown notice. This explainer sets out each suit, what the courts have decided, and what brands can learn from it.

Short answer: Shein v Temu is a set of cross-suits. Each side accuses the other of IP abuse and unfair tactics. Two early US cases were dropped in October 2023. In Washington DC, Temu’s case over false takedown notices and Shein’s case over trade secrets and false advertising both survived motions to dismiss in part. In London, Shein’s copyright claim failed on 13 August 2026.

Key takeaways

• A Washington DC judge ruled on 30 September 2025 that Temu could pursue claims that Shein sent knowingly false takedown notices, but dismissed Temu’s antitrust and trade secret claims.
• On 7 January 2026 the same judge dismissed Temu’s parent, PDD Holdings, from Shein’s DC case, while letting Shein’s trade secret and false advertising claims against Temu’s US operator proceed.
• In London, Mrs Justice Bacon held that Temu did not infringe Shein’s copyright in product photos uploaded by third-party sellers, and would have had the hosting defence anyway.
• Temu won its counterclaim on liability: Shein must compensate it for listings wrongly taken down under interim injunctions, with damages to be set at a later trial.

How did the Shein v Temu fight start?

Temu launched in the US in 2022, when, by Temu’s own account, Shein was by far the largest player in ultra-fast fashion there. Litigation followed quickly. Shein’s IP-holding company, Roadget Business Pte. Ltd., sued Temu’s operators in federal court in Illinois, alleging that Shein marks and copyrighted images were being used on Temu and that impostor accounts were misleading consumers. On 31 July 2023 Judge Franklin Valderrama granted Roadget an emergency temporary restraining order on its trade mark and copyright claims.

Temu had already hit back. On 14 July 2023 its US operator, WhaleCo Inc., filed an antitrust complaint in federal court in Massachusetts, accusing Shein of tying up clothing manufacturers with exclusive dealing arrangements and a “campaign of threats, intimidation, false assertions of infringement”, as WBUR reported. Shein called the case without merit. On 26 October 2023 both sides filed to dismiss the Illinois and Massachusetts cases on the same day. The truce did not last.

FLJ Insider Pro is open: live fashion law jobs and internships, five career guides and two roadmaps. Early bird USD 12/month. See what's inside

What is Temu’s case against Shein in Washington DC?

In December 2023 WhaleCo sued Shein in the US District Court for the District of Columbia, alleging a “multifaceted scheme” to slow Temu’s growth. The centre of the complaint is the Digital Millennium Copyright Act. Temu says its US site hosts more than three million products and more than 80 million images, receives about 170 takedown requests a day, and that 63% of them come from Shein. It alleges that Shein claimed to own images it did not own, sent notices on behalf of suppliers that lacked rights, targeted listings whose only similarity to Shein’s was the uncopyrightable product itself, and in spring 2023 sent notices covering nearly 20,000 listings in an unclickable format. These are allegations, not findings.

In a 52-page opinion of 30 September 2025, Judge Timothy J. Kelly let five claims go forward: knowing misrepresentation in DMCA notices under 17 U.S.C. § 512(f), copyright infringement over Temu’s promotional games, a claim about inaccurate copyright registrations (as a request for declaratory relief only), trade dress infringement over Temu’s arcade-style look, and unfair competition. He dismissed the trade secret claims because the alleged taking happened in China, the Sherman Act and DC antitrust claims under the Foreign Trade Antitrust Improvements Act, the Clayton Act exclusive dealing claim, tortious interference and abuse of process. Shein’s subsidiary Shein Technology LLC was dropped as a defendant because no specific conduct was attributed to it.

The surviving § 512(f) claim is the one brand owners should notice. The judge found Temu had plausibly alleged that Shein knew its notices were false, based on their volume and other conduct. Mass takedown programmes are routine in fashion; this ruling shows they can be turned into a cause of action against the sender.

What is Shein’s case against Temu?

Shein answered with its own DC suit, filed on 19 August 2024 against WhaleCo and PDD Holdings. Its 16-count complaint alleged trade secret theft by a Temu employee, followed by knock-off versions of Shein’s best-selling products, along with copyright and trade mark infringement, counterfeiting, false advertising, unfair competition and product disparagement. Temu rejected the accusations at the time.

Judge Kelly ruled on 7 January 2026. He dismissed PDD Holdings for lack of personal jurisdiction, finding Shein had not alleged enough to treat WhaleCo as its parent’s alter ego. Against WhaleCo, which had challenged only part of the complaint, he dismissed the product disparagement and trade mark dilution claims but let the trade secret and false advertising claims proceed, including claims about statements made by influencers and a contributory false advertising theory. The copyright and trade mark infringement counts were not challenged at that stage.

Shein’s US litigation goes beyond Temu. FLJ has covered other claims against and by Shein in Is SHEIN Legit? and in Q Productions v. SHEIN.

What did the High Court decide in London?

The most complete ruling so far is Roadget Business Pte Ltd and Shein Distribution UK Ltd v WhaleCo UK Ltd [2026] EWHC 2165 (Ch), handed down by Mrs Justice Bacon on 13 August 2026 after a trial in May. Shein claimed copyright in photos of Shein-branded clothing used in 2,559 listings on Temu’s UK site: 2,285 taken by Shein employees, 263 from suppliers and 11 from agencies. It notified the listings in a letter before action in June 2023 and under interim injunctions granted in September 2023 and February 2024, and Temu removed thousands of listings as a result.

The trial ran on a sample of 20 listings, but by the second pre-trial review Shein had dropped all the agency works and all but one supplier work, leaving four employee photos and one supplier image, the “Strawberry Nightdress”. The judgment found:

• Before June 2024 Shein held only a non-exclusive licence of the Strawberry Nightdress photos, acquiring the copyright later; its claim on that work also failed because Mr Lin, who commissioned the photos, had consented to their use on a Temu store.
• Temu did not authorise infringement by users viewing its site, and any temporary copies they made were covered by section 28A of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988.
• Temu did not communicate the photos to the public, because it had not intervened deliberately and in full knowledge of the consequences.
• The secondary infringement claim failed because Temu did not know, and had no reason to believe, the photos were infringing before it removed the listings.
• Had there been infringement, Temu would have been protected by the hosting defence in regulation 19 of the Electronic Commerce (EC Directive) Regulations 2002.

The sting came in the counterclaim. To get its interim injunctions, Shein gave the usual cross-undertaking to compensate Temu if the orders proved unjustified. The court held Shein liable under it for listings wrongly taken down; as Mishcon de Reya noted, removing an image inevitably removed the listing, and Temu could not have swapped in new photos within the two-day deadline. The amount will be fixed at a third trial. Temu’s separate claims that Shein breached the Competition Act 1998 have been transferred to the Competition Appeal Tribunal, with a liability trial listed for March 2027.

Where does each case stand?

What can brands learn from Shein v Temu?

Prove title before you send notices. Shein’s UK claim shrank from 2,559 listings to five photos largely because it could not show a clean chain of title for supplier and agency images. Brands that rely on suppliers or freelance photographers need written assignments, not assumptions.

Takedowns carry risk for the sender. In the US, § 512(f) makes knowing misrepresentation in a DMCA notice actionable. In England, an interim injunction comes with a cross-undertaking that can turn into a damages bill. Notices should be accurate, targeted and checked.

Marketplaces are not automatically liable. The London ruling confirms that a platform providing a standard upload template and acting on notices can rely on the hosting defence, even if it controls pricing and promotions. That puts the focus on the seller, which is also the approach in FLJ’s guide to who is liable for fakes on resale platforms. In the EU, the Digital Services Act adds separate duties on the platforms themselves, as Temu’s €200 million fine showed in FLJ’s analysis of the decision.

Frequently asked questions

Did Shein win its lawsuit against Temu?

Not in London. On 13 August 2026 the High Court dismissed Shein’s copyright claim over product photos on Temu’s UK site and upheld Temu’s counterclaim on liability. In the US, Shein’s DC case against Temu’s operator continues after the court let its trade secret and false advertising claims proceed.

Why did Temu sue Shein?

Temu accuses Shein of trying to block its growth by sending false copyright takedown notices, locking up suppliers with exclusive deals and intimidation, and copying Temu’s arcade-style design. A DC judge dismissed the antitrust and trade secret claims but let the takedown, copyright, trade dress and unfair competition claims proceed.

What is a section 512(f) claim?

Section 512(f) of the US Copyright Act makes a person liable for damages if they knowingly and materially misrepresent in a DMCA notice that material is infringing. Temu relies on it to argue that Shein sent thousands of notices it knew were false.

Why was Shein ordered to compensate Temu in the UK?

When Shein obtained interim injunctions in 2023 and 2024, it promised to pay for any loss if the orders proved unjustified. The court held that some listings were wrongly taken down as a result, so Shein is liable. The amount will be decided at a later trial.

Is Temu liable for what its sellers upload?

Not on the facts of the London case. The judge found Temu did not authorise or communicate the photos and lacked knowledge they infringed, and said it would have had the hosting defence. That depends on the platform staying passive towards the specific content and acting quickly on notice.

Are Shein and Temu still in court?

Yes, as far as public records show. Both Washington DC cases continue on their surviving claims, damages on Temu’s UK counterclaim are still to be assessed, and Temu’s competition claims are listed for a liability trial at the Competition Appeal Tribunal in March 2027.

This article is general information, not legal advice. Descriptions of the parties’ claims are allegations unless a court has decided them, and the position reflects public court records available at the time of writing.

Featured image: Photo: Raysonho @ Open Grid Scheduler / Scalable Grid Engine via Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0 (adapted)