EU Commission accuses Temu of obstructing investigation

According to the authority's account, Temu is refusing or delaying the transmission of requested documents and information. In doing so, the Commission says, the ongoing investigation is being obstructed. The accusations carry particular weight because antitrust proceedings depend on prompt and complete cooperation from the companies involved.

Accusation of insufficient cooperation

The background is a proceeding in which the EU Commission is examining potentially anticompetitive advantages stemming from state support outside the European single market. Such proceedings are part of the regulatory framework with which Brussels seeks to ensure equal competitive conditions for European and non-European companies. Temu is among the most-used online trading platforms in the EU and has already been under intensified scrutiny for some time.

The Commission announced that it would incorporate the allegation of obstruction into the ongoing proceedings. Should the suspicion be confirmed, Temu faces substantial fines under EU law. At the same time, the underlying original proceeding on the possible state support remains open. Both strands – the question of willingness to cooperate and the substantive antitrust review – are now being advanced in parallel.

From the perspective of the Brussels antitrust authorities, the complete answering of information requests is not a voluntary act of cooperation but a procedural obligation. If companies fail to meet this obligation, the Commission can treat this as an independent infringement and punish it with additional sanctions. This is precisely the breach of duty it is now accusing Temu of.

Possible consequences for Temu and consumers

For consumers in the EU, a concluded proceeding would be relevant in two ways: Should the suspicion of unlawful state support be confirmed, Temu might have to repay certain preferential advantages, which could affect the platform's pricing. At the same time, the ongoing review is part of the efforts to enforce fair competitive conditions vis-à-vis European merchants.

The proceeding is being conducted by the Directorate-General for Competition of the EU Commission. How long the review will take remains open. Experience shows that such investigations can extend over several months to years, especially when – as now announced – an obstruction of the inquiry is also on the table. Temu can comment on the accusations and submit its own documents; the final decision lies with the Commission.

Observers interpret the accusation as a signal to international online platforms that the EU consistently uses its antitrust powers. Other major digital corporations have likewise faced tightened controls in Brussels for years. With the step now initiated against Temu, the Commission reaffirms its claim to insist on complete and timely responses to information requests.