Large fashion companies operating in the European Union can no longer destroy unsold clothing, accessories and footwear under a new rule intended to reduce textile waste and promote more circular business models.

The prohibition entered into application on July 19, 2026, under the EU’s Ecodesign for Sustainable Products Regulation, commonly known as the ESPR.

The measure directly affects fashion brands, retailers, marketplaces and e-commerce companies that manage excess inventory, discontinued collections and returned products. Instead of sending usable goods to landfill or incineration, affected businesses must prioritize resale, donation, repair, refurbishment, remanufacturing or recycling.

For the fashion e-commerce sector, the regulation transforms returns and excess inventory from a cost-management issue into a compliance priority.

What does the EU ban cover?

The prohibition applies to unsold:

• Clothing
• Clothing accessories
• Footwear
• Returned products within these categories

Large companies are affected from July 19, 2026. Medium-sized enterprises are expected to be subject to the same prohibition as of July 19, 2030, while micro and small businesses are currently exempt.

The rule covers products that were never sold as well as returned goods that remain suitable for resale, repair or reuse.

Companies must follow the EU waste hierarchy. This means prevention and reuse should be prioritized before recycling, incineration or disposal.

Discount sales, outlet distribution, secondary marketplaces, donation programs and repair services may therefore become increasingly important routes for unsold stock.

Why has the EU introduced the measure?

The European fashion sector generates significant waste before many products are ever used.

According to figures referenced by the European Commission, between 4% and 9% of textile products placed on the European market are destroyed before use. This represents an estimated 264,000 to 594,000 tonnes of textiles annually.

The Commission also estimates that destroying unsold textiles generates approximately 5.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide emissions every year.

These figures include more than the environmental impact of disposal. Every destroyed product also represents wasted raw materials, water, energy, transport and labor.

The prohibition is intended to discourage overproduction and encourage brands to improve forecasting, stock management and product circulation.

Are any exceptions allowed?

Products may still be destroyed in limited and justified circumstances.

Possible exceptions include goods that:

• Present a health or safety risk
• Are contaminated
• Are damaged beyond repair
• Are counterfeit
• Infringe intellectual-property rights
• Cannot reasonably be reused or recycled

However, high storage costs, reduced profitability or the difficulty of reselling a product are not sufficient reasons for destruction.

Businesses using an exception must be able to prove why destruction was necessary. This may require safety reports, damage assessments, correspondence with donation partners or evidence that reuse and recycling options were unavailable.

Relevant documentation must generally be retained for 5 years to allow national authorities to inspect it.

Why the ban matters for fashion e-commerce

Online fashion retailers are particularly exposed because they normally process higher return volumes than physical stores.

Customers often order several sizes, styles or colors and return the products they do not want. Returned goods may arrive with damaged packaging, missing labels or signs of handling. Seasonal products can also lose value while they move through the returns process.

In the past, some companies concluded that inspecting, cleaning, repackaging and restocking a low-value product cost more than disposing of it.

That calculation must now include regulatory compliance.

A product cannot be destroyed simply because processing it is expensive. Retailers must determine whether it can be resold, repaired, donated or recycled before considering disposal.

This increases the importance of fast returns processing. The longer a product remains in a returns center, the more likely it is to lose commercial value.

Reverse logistics becomes a compliance function

Retailers need visibility over what happens to every returned or unsold product after it reaches a warehouse, fulfillment center, store or logistics partner.

A compliant reverse-logistics operation should be able to direct products towards:

• Immediate resale
• Cleaning and repackaging
• Repair or refurbishment
• Outlet or secondary-market sale
• Donation
• Recycling
• Documented destruction as a last resort

This will require better product grading and stronger links among order management, inventory, and warehouse systems.

Companies should also review contracts with fulfillment and waste-management providers. Agreements should clearly explain who assesses returned goods, who approves disposal and who stores the evidence supporting each decision.

Outsourcing logistics does not necessarily remove the retailer’s regulatory responsibility.

Recommerce could benefit

The ban is likely to increase the supply of clothing and footwear available for resale.

Brands may expand official second-hand stores, outlet platforms, refurbishment programs and partnerships with recommerce marketplaces.

Other companies may use business-to-business liquidation networks to sell excess stock to authorized resellers rather than destroying it.

Luxury brands face a more complex challenge. Heavy discounting can weaken exclusivity, while uncontrolled liquidation may place products in unauthorized sales channels.

These companies may need to develop controlled resale programs, authenticated second-hand platforms or material-recovery systems that protect both compliance and brand value.

Better forecasting becomes essential

The best way to avoid problems with unsold stock is to produce and purchase more accurately.

Fashion businesses are likely to invest further in artificial intelligence, predictive analytics and real-time stock visibility.

Useful measures include:

• Smaller initial production runs
• Faster replenishment cycles
• Improved local demand forecasting
• Earlier markdowns
• Stock transfers between markets
• Pre-orders
• On-demand production
• Better analysis of return reasons

Retailers that identify weak demand early can redirect stock while it still has commercial value.

The regulation may therefore favor companies with flexible supply chains over businesses dependent on large advance orders and long production cycles.

Marketplaces must clarify responsibility

Online marketplaces may also be affected when they own inventory, provide fulfillment services or determine how returns are processed.

They must establish who owns a returned product, who decides whether it can be resold and who is responsible for documenting any disposal.

Marketplaces may need to revise automatic destruction settings and provide sellers with clearer resale, donation and recycling options.

This is especially important for fulfillment programs in which merchants have limited control over how returned or aging stock is handled.

What should retailers do now?

Affected businesses should immediately review every point at which returned or unsold stock leaves their inventory.

Priority actions include:

• Suspending automatic destruction policies
• Establishing product-grading procedures
• Creating resale, repair, donation and recycling routes
• Requiring approval before destruction
• Retaining evidence for every exception
• Reviewing logistics-provider contracts
• Training warehouse and returns teams
• Improving inventory and returns data
• Identifying approved resale and recycling partners

Companies should also prepare for disclosure obligations that require greater transparency about the quantity and types of unsold goods they discard.

A major change for European fashion

The ban on destroying unsold clothing and footwear is part of the EU’s wider effort to make textiles more durable, repairable and recyclable.

For fashion e-commerce, its impact will be felt across inventory planning, returns management, fulfillment, resale and logistics.

Unsold products can no longer be treated as disposable stock. They must be tracked and directed towards the most valuable compliant alternative.

Businesses with accurate forecasting, efficient reverse logistics and established resale networks will be best positioned to adapt.

For the European fashion industry, destruction is no longer the simplest answer to excess inventory.

The post EU ban on destroying unsold clothing and footwear enters into force appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

European Union regulators have conducted a raid on Temu's Dublin headquarters as part of an investigation into potential violations of EU law on foreign subsidies. The move signals a significant escalation in regulatory scrutiny of major Chinese e-commerce platforms operating in the European market. Beyond Temu itself, the case highlights growing concerns within the EU about fair competition, market distortion, and the impact of state-backed advantages on European retailers and digital marketplaces.

Why Temu Is Under Investigation

At the center of the investigation is the EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation, a legal framework designed to address situations in which companies benefit from financial support from non-EU governments. Such subsidies can allow firms to operate at artificially low costs, undercut competitors, or scale faster than would otherwise be possible under normal market conditions.

EU authorities are examining whether Temu, owned by the Chinese group PDD Holdings, may have benefited from state-backed financial support that distorts competition within the European Single Market. The regulation allows the European Commission to investigate, request internal documents, and conduct on-site inspections when there are reasonable grounds for suspicion.

Why Dublin Matters

Dublin has become a strategic hub for many global digital platforms, serving as a European base for legal, tax, and operational purposes. By targeting Temu’s Dublin headquarters, EU regulators are signaling that companies operating within EU jurisdiction are fully subject to European competition and subsidy rules, regardless of where their parent companies are headquartered.

The Broader Context: Rising Scrutiny of Chinese E-Commerce Platforms

The raid reflects a broader shift in how the EU approaches large non-European digital platforms, particularly those originating from China. In recent years, EU institutions have grown increasingly concerned about the rapid expansion of low-cost marketplaces offering ultra-cheap goods, often shipped directly from outside the EU.

This scrutiny is not limited to subsidies. It aligns with parallel regulatory efforts related to product safety, consumer protection, customs enforcement, and data governance. Together, these measures aim to rebalance competition between EU-based retailers and global e-commerce giants.

Impact on Platforms Like Shein and AliExpress

While the investigation focuses on Temu, it sends a clear message to other Chinese e-commerce platforms operating in Europe. Companies with similar business models may face increased audits, document requests, and enforcement actions if regulators suspect unfair competitive advantages linked to foreign state support.

Potential Consequences for Temu

If the investigation concludes that Temu has benefited from illegal foreign subsidies, the European Commission has the power to impose significant remedies. These can include financial penalties, requirements to repay subsidies, or structural and behavioral changes to the company's operations in the EU market.

Such measures could directly affect Temu’s pricing strategies, logistics model, or ability to subsidize shipping and promotions, which are core elements of its rapid growth strategy in Europe.

Strategic and Reputational Risks

Beyond legal consequences, the investigation poses reputational risks. Increased regulatory attention may reduce consumer trust or raise concerns among European partners and suppliers. For a platform that competes heavily on scale and visibility, reputational damage can translate into slower growth and greater operational friction.

Implications for the European E-Commerce Market

European retailers and marketplaces have long argued that they face unfair competition from ultra-low-cost platforms benefiting from external subsidies and regulatory loopholes. More vigorous enforcement of foreign subsidy rules could help create a more level playing field, particularly for small and mid-sized EU merchants struggling to compete on price alone.

Higher Compliance Expectations for Global Platforms

The Temu raid reinforces the message that operating in the EU requires complete alignment with European competition, subsidy, and transparency standards. Global e-commerce platforms may need to invest more heavily in compliance, legal oversight, and documentation to mitigate regulatory risk.

What This Signals for the Future of EU Digital Regulation

The raid on Temu’s Dublin headquarters is not an isolated enforcement action. It represents a broader evolution in EU digital and trade policy, in which economic openness is increasingly balanced with strategic autonomy and fair competition.

As the EU continues to refine its regulatory toolkit, including foreign subsidy controls and digital market oversight, global e-commerce platforms should expect deeper scrutiny of their funding structures, pricing models, and supply chains. For the European e-commerce ecosystem, this marks a decisive step toward stricter governance and a more assertive regulatory stance in the global digital economy.

The post EU Regulators Raid Temu’s Dublin Headquarters Amid Foreign Subsidy Investigation appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

As of today, June 28, 2025, the EU Accessibility Act (Directive 2019/882) is officially in force across all 27 EU member states. This legislation establishes a uniform standard for digital accessibility, compelling e-commerce businesses to ensure their websites, apps, checkouts, and digital services are fully usable by people with disabilities.

For online retailers, marketplaces, fintech platforms, and service providers, today’s enforcement date represents a significant shift in legal obligations and user expectations. Failure to comply with the requirements could now lead to national penalties, including substantial fines, platform restrictions, or reputational damage.

What Is the EU Accessibility Act?

The EU Accessibility Act aims to eliminate digital barriers by ensuring products and services are accessible to people with visual, auditory, cognitive, or motor impairments. For e-commerce, it covers:

• Websites and mobile apps
  
• Online checkout processes
  
• Customer service portals (including chat, forms, and help centers)
  
• Electronic documents like order confirmations and invoices
  
• E-book marketplaces, banking interfaces, ticketing platforms, and more
  

The technical benchmark for compliance is the EN 301 549 standard, which aligns closely with WCAG 2.1 AA accessibility guidelines.

Who Must Comply?

Covered:

• E-commerce businesses selling to EU consumers (B2C and B2B)
  
• Marketplaces (e.g., Amazon, Zalando, Allegro, Kaufland)
  
• Digital banking and fintech platforms offering shopping-related tools
  
• Booking platforms for travel, transport, and entertainment
  
• Software vendors building e-commerce tools or interfaces
  

Exempt (with conditions):

• Microenterprises, defined as businesses with fewer than 10 employees and an annual turnover of under €2 million, are exempt from legal enforcement, although they are encouraged to follow best practices voluntarily.
  

Penalties and Enforcement

Each EU member state enforces the Accessibility Act through its national authority. As of today, non-compliant platforms may face:

• Fines ranging from €20,000 to €150,000 or more, depending on the country
  
• Public enforcement actions by regulators
  
• Consumer complaints and civil litigation
  
• Damage to SEO, customer retention, and brand credibility
  

Why This Matters for EU E-Commerce

1. Expanding Market Reach

Over 87 million people in the EU live with some form of disability. Making online shopping accessible opens your business to a wider, underserved audience.

2. Conversion and SEO Gains

Accessible websites load faster, reduce bounce rates, and improve mobile usability—all of which contribute to higher conversion rates and better search rankings.

3. ESG and Brand Reputation

Accessibility compliance supports broader Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) goals, making brands more attractive to investors and conscious consumers.

What E-Commerce Platforms Should Have Done by Today

Conducted an Accessibility Audit

Websites and apps should already be tested against EN 301 549 and WCAG 2.1 AA, with a focus on navigation, forms, alt text, color contrast, and keyboard usability.

Fixed Known Issues

Common non-compliance points include:

• Missing or incorrect image alt text
  
• Unlabeled buttons or form fields
  
• Inadequate color contrast
  
• Inaccessible CAPTCHAs or payment forms
  

Published an Accessibility Statement

All covered platforms must now include an Accessibility Statement on their website, detailing compliance status and contact information for support or feedback.

Trained Internal Teams

Front-end developers, UX designers, content creators, and customer support teams must understand how to maintain accessibility across all digital touchpoints.

The enforcement of the EU Accessibility Act on June 28, 2025 marks a turning point for digital commerce across Europe. Accessibility is no longer optional—it is a legal requirement and a business imperative. Brands that embraced compliance early are now positioned to serve a broader audience, improve performance metrics, and build lasting trust. Those that haven't must act now—not just to avoid penalties, but to stay relevant in a more inclusive digital economy.

The post EU Accessibility Act Takes Effect Today: A New Era for E-Commerce Across Europe appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

The European Union plans to implement regulations that will make e-commerce platforms such as Temu, Shein, and Amazon Marketplace accountable for selling unsafe or illegal products, as reported by the Financial Times this Saturday.

A draft proposal, cited by the newspaper, states that customs reforms require these platforms to provide information on products before arriving in the EU. The aim is to improve the authorities' control and optimize the inspection of shipments.

Currently, online shoppers in the EU are considered importers for customs purposes. However, with the reform, the platforms will assume responsibility for ensuring that products comply with European regulations, managing the payment of taxes, and ensuring compliance with legal requirements.

Likewise, customs data from the 27 member countries will be centralized, and the EU Central Customs Authority (EUCA) will be created. This entity will be able to analyze information before the goods are shipped, allowing the detection of possible risks before their physical arrival in European territory.

Temu and Shein legal issues in the EU 

Temu and Shein have faced increasing legal scrutiny in the EU over consumer protection, labor practices, and competition law issues. Regulators have raised concerns about the companies' compliance with the Digital Services Act (DSA) and other regulations to ensure transparency in online marketplaces. 

Additionally, both platforms have been criticized for alleged exploitative labor conditions in their supply chains, prompting investigations into their ethical sourcing practices. The EU has also examined their pricing strategies and potential tax avoidance, with some policymakers calling for stricter oversight of fast-fashion and ultra-low-cost e-commerce models.

The post The EU wants to make Temu and Shein accountable for selling unsafe or illegal products appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

The Irish Data Protection Authority (DPC) has fined LinkedIn €310 million after concluding that the social network's processing of personal data by its users does not comply with the European Union's General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR).

As expressed in a statement by DPC, the Irish entity began an investigation following a complaint initially filed with the Data Protection Authority of France. In addition to the fine of 310 million euros, the DPC has issued an order for LinkedIn to bring its processing of personal data into line with EU regulations.

In this context, the Irish authority concludes that LinkedIn's processing of personal data was not based on the consent of the social network's users for third parties to process their data to analyze their behavior and be recipients of targeted advertising.

“The consent obtained by LinkedIn was not freely given, sufficiently informed or specific, “ says the agency, adding that ‘the lawfulness of the processing is a fundamental aspect of data protection law and processing without an adequate legal basis constitutes a clear and serious breach of the data subject'sfundamental right to data protection.’

For its part, LinkedIn has indicated that, while it believes it has complied with the General Data Protection Regulation, it is working to ensure that its advertising practices are compliant with the European regulation before the CPD deadline.

This is the sixth significant fine issued for GDPR breaches. The largest was a €1.55 billion penalty imposed on Meta by the Irish DPC in 2023.

TikTok was also fined by the EU 

In 2023, European regulators placed upon TikTok a €345 million fine for failing to protect children's privacy. It was the first time the popular short video-sharing app was punished for breaching Europe's strict data privacy rules.

In this case, Ireland's Data Protection Commission said it was fining TikTok and reprimanding the platform for the violations dating back to the second half of 2020.

The Commission's investigation also found that the default settings posed a risk to children under 13 who had gained access to the platform despite being underage.

In addition, the Commission ruled that a 'family pairing' feature designed for parents to manage settings was not strict enough, allowing adults to turn on direct messaging for users aged 16 and 17 without their consent.

The post LinkedIn gets fined €310 million for breaching the EU - GDPR appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Meta – parent of Facebook, Instagram, and WhatsApp –  will not launch its upcoming multimodal artificial intelligence (AI) models in the European Union (EU) due to the “unpredictable nature” of its regulatory environment.

“We will launch a multimodal Llama model in the coming months, but not in the EU due to the unpredictable nature of the European regulatory environment,” the company has advanced to Axios media.

This decision may have several consequences for both companies and users in the EU. One of them is that European companies will not have access to this multimodal AI technology to carry out their work processes, despite the fact that these are models that Meta always publishes under an open license.

In this line, users and companies will also not be able to develop their own products if they make use of the new models that Meta plans to launch. Similarly, the technology company has pointed out that it could also affect other companies that operate outside the EU and that, therefore, do use the multimodal models, as it could prevent these companies from offering their products and services in Europe.

Despite the fact that the Artificial Intelligence Regulation will come into force on August 1 this 2024, Meta is currently facing problems with the European regulation due to the need to use data from users participating in its platforms to continue training its AI models.

Specifically, the EU opposes the use of user data by companies such as Meta under the requirements of the current General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), which seeks to ensure that users have greater control over the personal information handled by its online services, as well as deciding the type of advertising they receive.

Meta wants to use public info to train their AI 

In this context, Meta announced last May its intention to use information shared in Facebook and Instagram posts by public users to train its upcoming AI models. However, Meta later added an option so that, through an objection form, users could prevent using their data posted on both platforms.

Finally, in June, Ireland's data protection authority, the Data Protection Commission (DPC), announced that Meta had halted plans to train its AI models on public content shared by adults on Facebook and Instagram in the EU.

For its part, Meta shared its “disappointment” at having to delay training its large language models (LLMs) using public content from its platforms. “This is a step backward for European innovation, competition in AI development, and further delays in bringing the benefits of AI to people in Europe,” it sentenced in a statement on its blog, noting that “AI training is not a technology unique to Meta's services and that they are also more transparent than many of their industry peers.”

It is worth noting that other tech companies have also made this decision, as is the case of Apple, which recently detailed that it will delay the arrival of its AI features, Apple Intelligence, in the EU, as well as iPhone Mirroring for Mac and SharePlay Screen Sharing features due to “regulatory uncertainties” related, in this case, to the Digital Markets Act (DMA).

However, despite all this, Meta has also indicated to the media above outlet that they plan to release a larger version of their text-only Llama 3 model. This new version will be available to customers and companies in the EU. 

Likewise, the technology company has also confirmed that it will launch its following multimodal AI models in the United Kingdom because, although they also have a law similar to the GDPR, they do not have the same uncertainty scenario as in the European Union; it has clarified.

The post Meta won’t launch their AI models in the EU appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.

Vinted will have to pay a fine of 2.3 million euros for allegedly violating several aspects of the European General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR). The fine follows complaints from several Europeans - Germany, France, Poland, and Spain, and one of the main issues is the practice of 'shadowbanning'. As a result, the Lithuanian regulator SDPI (State Data Protection Inspectorate), where Vinted is registered, has launched an investigation against the company.

According to FashionUnited, the investigation shows that Vinted "does not adequately respect users' right to be forgotten". Vinted members have been asked to provide specific arguments to remove their personal data. If these specifics are not given, Vinted rejects the request, which is not allowed.

Furthermore, SDPI considers that "the fashion platform is not sufficiently transparent about which personal data it uses." In this context, it stresses that the platform practices 'shadowbanning'. That is, Vinted members can be excluded from Vinted without being informed. This practice is applied when the rules of behavior are violated. In such a case, users can still post items for sale, but other users cannot see their ads. SDPI considers this method "illegal."

In response to these accusations, Vinted has explained to the aforementioned media outlet, "We would like to reassure our members that the issues referred to by the Lithuanian data protection authority are in no way related to the security of their accounts nor do they involve abuse or violation of their personal data."

What exactly is Shadowbanning, and why is Vinted accused of doing it? 

Shadow banning, also called stealth banning, hell banning, ghost banning, and comment ghosting, is the practice of blocking or partially blocking a user or the user's content from some areas of an online community in such a way that the ban is not readily apparent to the user, regardless of whether the action is taken by an individual or an algorithm. For example, shadow-banned comments posted to a blog or media website would be visible to the sender, but not to other site users.

This practice is precisely what the EU authorities have accessed Vinted of doing, implying that some users have been banned without them fully knowing this. To this, Vinted has officially responded with the following: 

"We take privacy and GDPR very seriously and have invested heavily in compliance and protection of our members, collaborating throughout this process with the VDAI. However, we have found no legal basis for this decision and believe it sets a new precedent that goes beyond the current wording of the law and industry best practices. We fundamentally disagree with this fine and will continue to appeal, as we have throughout this process," the company said.

"Regarding the VDAI's decision on shadowbanning processes, which we used in the past to keep our platform and our members safe, we would like to reiterate that we no longer use these processes. We regularly evaluate these measures and adjust them to align with technological advances and changing legal regulations," they reiterated.

The post Vinted fined 2.3 million euros for ‘shadowbanning’ + Vinted official response  appeared first on Cross-Border Magazine.