France to ban ads for Shein and Temu in crackdown on 'ultra' fast fashion giants
The French Senate has overwhelmingly approved legislation to regulate 'ultra' fast fashion giants Shein and Temu. On June 10, the Senate passed a bill which would sanction companies with low 'eco-scores' and prohibit fast fashion advertisements.
The bill directly targets Chinese e-commerce companies which have a reputation for selling products at extremely low prices. Environmental groups like Friends of the Earth have highlighted that Shein high product turnover "break[s] the market by selling at a loss" and "encourag[es] overconsumption and waste".
The minister for ecological transition, Agnes Pannier-Runacher, called the bill "a major step in the fight against the economic and environmental impact of fast fashion and a strong signal sent to businesses and to consumers'.
Pannier-Runacher has called fast fashion a "triple threat" that promotes overconsumption, causes ecological damage and threatens French clothing businesses. The new bill was modified from a previous version that was passed by France's lower house in 2024.
The new version focuses on 'ultra' fast fashion companies and is notably lenient on European offenders like Zara, H&M and Kiabi. The amendments have drawn criticism from environmental groups with Pierre Condamine, campaign manager at Friends of the Earth France, calling the bill a 'missed opportunity' for 'real environmental ambition'.
Jean-François Longeot, chair of the Senate's Committee on regional planning and sustainable development, defended the amendment saying: 'The [bill] clarifications make it possible to target players who ignore environmental, social, and economic realities, notably Shein and Temu, without penalising the European ready-to-wear sector'.
Help us improve our content by completing the survey below. We'd love to hear from you!
The bill will see the introduction of an 'eco-score' system applicable to all fast fashion companies. Those receiving the lowest scores will face taxes of up to five euros per product in 2025, increasing to 10 euros by 2030 with a cap of 50 percent of the product's original price.
The legislation would also ban fast fashion advertising and impose sanctions on influencers who promote such products.
A joint committee of senators and lower house deputies is expected to meet in September to produce a joint text, prior to the final adoption of the law. The European Commission also has to be notified, to ensure the bill complies with EU law prior to its adoption.
Speaking to RTL radio on Monday, Shein spokesperson Quentin Ruffat said that regulation of the fast fashion industry will only succeed with 'collective effort' and not by targeting a 'single actor'. Ruffat said the new law would 'impact the purchasing power' of French people.
The approval of the French legislation comes just a few weeks after consumer watchdogs from 21 countries filed a formal complaint to EU authorities about Shein for 'shaming' customers into buying more than they can afford.
The European Consumer Organisation (BEUC) submitted a 29-page report to the European Commission citing 'dark patterns' and deceptive techniques to promote consumer purchases. The report lists fake countdown timers and low-stock warnings to create a false sense of urgency and scarcity.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Spectator
Has Zelensky become a liability?
Is Volodymyr Zelensky becoming a liability for the West and for his own country? We are entitled at least to pose this question as we (I mean America and Europe) are funding this war. I ask because it is clear, and for years has been clear, that the conflict with Russia must end in a compromise, and the shape of that compromise should not be in doubt. Russia must be given a ladder to climb down and this must involve land. Ukraine must gain what from the start has been the great prize that Moscow has tried to deny it: an unshakeable place in the community of European democracies, with the military and economic guarantees from the West that make that place secure. It was Boris Johnson who first framed the idiotic boast that now threatens to block progress towards such a settlement. 'Not an inch!' he cried, to Ukrainian cheers, when he was prime minister. Perhaps he thought this was just the kind of thing you say for an easy headline and the whoops of the groundlings; but even he must have doubted that Russia could realistically be driven from everything it had gained, and Vladimir Putin be forced to grovel. Too many British minds, I think, have been prey to the illusion that the second world war was a template for future conflict, and Hitler a template for Putin. Most wars, however, end in messy compromises, and that is how this one must end too. Let me start with the issue of land. It would be stupid for a generalist columnist like me to feign the knowledge that will be needed once negotiations over new borders begin, but I will volunteer this: Crimea (it can at least be argued) is not historically part of Ukraine and only got tacked onto Ukraine when the Soviet Union had both of them among its many countries and regions. I spent time in Ukraine last year, choosing to talk not to soldiers, generals or politicians, but to the under-25s. If you seek the point on the dial when many younger Ukrainians' refusal to contemplate ceding territory begins to waver, that place is Crimea. Despite official assurances from Ukraine that most citizens are against a land-for-peace deal, other polls (and my own conversations) suggest that people don't have principled objections to any ceding of land so much as serious doubts about whether Putin could ever be trusted to keep his word once a land-for-peace deal had been signed. That then – the security side of the agreement which I suggested at the beginning of this column – is absolutely the nub of the entire settlement. I'm in no doubt that if the Ukrainian people could be convinced the settlement would be permanent, and backed to the hilt by the West, they would vote tomorrow for a treaty that gave Russia permanent possession of some of what it has already taken. Let me anticipate at this point some readers' objections. Firstly this: 'Nothing agreed with Putin can he be relied upon to honour.' The trouble with this objection is that it is too strong. It means that even if he could be driven back to the old frontiers, and surrendered, he would try again later. I reply that he well might: that is why the security guarantees for Ukraine remain key. Secondly this: 'We must never reward Putin's aggression.' I'm afraid that, ever since wars began, aggression has often been rewarded. This one, in which incalculable numbers of lives on both sides have already been lost, and if it continues many more will be, must not be accorded the status of a moral lesson for the ages. The fact is that neither side seems capable of winning, so let's park the sermonising and look for the compromise in which so many wars – just wars as well as unjust ones – have always ended. And finally this: 'We owe it to the Ukrainian military dead, brave men and women whose lives were sacrificed for their country, not to settle for less than victory.' Well, if so, does Russia not owe it to the greater numbers of Russian military dead whose lives were sacrificed for their country too? What do we owe the British dead whose sacrifice in Afghanistan was also for a noble cause? This logic, applying as it must to both sides of any conflict, leads only to madness. None of us should be at all confident that Putin is ready to deal. I suspect otherwise. The greater likelihood is that in any negotiations he will fall back on Moscow's insistence that 'the root causes' of this conflict must be tackled. By this he means Ukraine's departure from the orbit of the Russian Federation. That is why security, not land, is what may prove the sticking point this time, because Ukraine's departure from Moscow's orbit must indeed be made secure. But if not this summer or this year, then next summer and next year, when the West's military support for Ukraine does not waver, and Moscow grows weary, this – security – must be at the heart of any negotiations. And those guarantees are up to us. Which brings me back to Zelensky. Who can blame him? Perhaps years of war, years of acute personal tension, years of sticking doggedly to your guns, years in the eye of the storm when your whole country's future rests on your shoulders, jam the flexibility of mind needed, not to fight but to deal. But there's a real danger now that Zelensky's apparent stubbornness over this 'not an inch' business may so infuriate a temperamental US President that American (and with it European) resolve begins to fray. Zelensky should not be digging in his heels on the question of land, and European nations, including our own, should not be encouraging him to. We probably can't save Ukraine without the Americans, and the Americans won't save Ukraine unless there's movement on conceding land. The Ukrainian President must get off his high horse, and Europe should stop indulging his intransigence. It's as simple as that.
Spectator
17 minutes ago
- Spectator
Trump's Alaska meeting is a gift for Putin
From the Kremlin's point of view, holding a US-Russia summit in Anchorage, Alaska is an idea of fiendish brilliance. The venue itself determines the agenda. Literally half a world away from the petty concerns of the European continent, Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin can flex the vastness of their respective countries. Anchorage is an eight-hour flight from Washington D.C. and roughly the same distance from Moscow, flying over no other country but Russia for most of the way. By travelling to the point where their countries almost touch in the North Pacific, both leaders can feel justified in prioritising issues that concern just the two of them, from arms control treaties to space cooperation to Arctic mineral rights. Seen from Anchorage, Ukraine seems a very distant and very local problem. The summit is the brainchild of Yuri Ushakov, a veteran diplomat who joined the USSR's foreign ministry in 1970. Ushakov is a wily old attack dog who learned the ways of Washington during a decade-long stint as Russian ambassador from 1998 to 2008. And in suggesting Alaska as a meeting point, Ushakov clearly knows how to flatter not only Trump's ego but also his own President's obsession with history. For Putin, Russia's conquest of north-east Asia and much of the coast of America's Pacific north-west is the founding myth of his country's modern greatness. In the 16th century Muscovy and Spain had both defeated Muslim occupiers and began expanding into rich new worlds east and west – in Spain's case, gold-rich America; in Muscovy's, fur-rich Siberia. Spanish conquistadors and Russian Cossacks reached the Pacific from different sides and started settling colonies along the coasts. In 1776, the Spanish Crown ordered the foundation of San Francisco – in the form of a Franciscan Mission and garrisoned Presidio – in direct response to news that Catherine the Great had started assembling a major Russian fleet to grab the unclaimed territory of northern California. In the event, Catherine's fleet was redeployed to fight a war with the Swedes, leaving most of California to the Spanish. Who was to say who was the more logical ruler of America's north-west coast, distant Madrid or distant St Petersburg? From 1816 until 1842 the southernmost frontier of the Russian empire was 70 miles north of San Francisco at Fort Ross on the Russian River (hence the name). For a brief period in the early 19th century Russia had a colony on Kaua'i island in Hawaii. And until 1867 the modern state of Alaska with its 6,500-mile coastline was known as Russian America and was a possession of the Tsar's. In the wake of the Crimean War, during which a Royal Navy force bombarded and briefly occupied the port of Petropavlovsk on Kamchatka, Tsar Alexander II realised he lacked the naval power to maintain control of his American colonies. He first offered Russian America to the British prime minister Lord Palmerston for the eminently logical reason that the territory was contiguous with British Columbia. Palmerston, however, was uninterested in acquiring half a million square miles of mostly unexplored North American wilderness. The only other plausible buyer was the US. But it took two years, and the distribution of tens of thousands of dollars in bribes to congressmen, for the Russians to persuade a reluctant secretary of state, William Seward, to write a cheque for $7.2 million for the Alaska Purchase – mocked at the time as 'Seward's Folly'. Even today, Alaska still bears the stamp of its century and a half as part of the Russian empire. A third of Alaska's population is Native American (by far the largest proportion of any US state) and most of the Aleut and Tlingit peoples still adhere to the Russian Orthodox faith. The major feature of every coastal town from Sitka to Kodiak is a distinctively Russian church, and there are communities of black-robed monks on out-lying islands – though most are Americans and their services are in English. Colonial echoes of Britain, France and Spain are commonplace in other countries, whether Anglican worshippers in Simla, French baguettes in Saigon or Spanish missions in California. Living echoes of a vanished Russian empire are much rarer and exist mostly in Alaska. It is clearly flattering and heartwarming for Putin to meet his American counterpart on what was once Russian territory. Some more excitable western commentators have claimed that hosting a summit in Anchorage encourages Putin's neo-imperial ambitions – including, supposedly, reclaiming the American lands sold by Alexander II. But the idea that 'Alaska Nash' (Alaska is Ours) is anything other than a Russian pub joke is absurd. A roadside billboard bearing that slogan and featuring a map of Russia including all of Alaska has been doing the rounds of Twitter as supposed evidence of Putin's revanchism. In fact it's just a jokey advertisement for a real estate company called Alaska. Rather than dog-whistling Russian imperialism, the location allows Putin to appeal to a bygone age of Russian-American cooperation where the two nations divided up large swaths of the world. The most recent example is, to Putin's mind, the Yalta conference of February 1945 where Stalin, Roosevelt and Churchill pored over maps and divided spheres of influence in the crumbling Nazi empire. A similar carve-up of Ukrainian territory is exactly what Volodymyr Zelensky fears and he has spent the week since the summit was announced gathering European support to insist that no deal can be done over the heads of the Ukrainians. Unfortunately for Kyiv, and for the Europeans, they're not invited. It's also highly likely that even if Putin and Trump reach some kind of a deal on a ceasefire, it will be largely on Russia's terms. But it's also possible that Moscow and Washington could agree on other, non-Ukraine related issues, such as getting Putin back on board with the New START treaty limiting the number of deployed nuclear weapons – the kind of deal that nuclear superpowers make between each other. And there is nothing that both Putin and Trump enjoy more than playing the role of imperial presidents.
Telegraph
20 minutes ago
- Telegraph
Manchester United target Carlos Baleba valued at more than £100m by Brighton
Carlos Baleba, the Brighton and Hove Albion midfielder, is valued by his club at more than £100m, although Manchester United are currently unwilling to buy at that level. The two clubs have not spoken directly about the player at a level that would suggest a deal is imminent with Baleba, 21, currently priced above what United would be prepared to pay this summer. He is the midfielder that United's Ineos hierarchy would wish to sign were they not operating within tight profitability and sustainability lines already. Brighton have made no moves to sell the player, who was a key part of their Premier League team last season, but as a trading club they would have to listen to offers at the kind of level that would get close to the club-record £115m fee Chelsea paid for Moisés Caicedo. Tony Bloom, the owner, would, as ever, have the final say on acceptable price. For United, Baleba is a player of great interest and is entering a period in his career where his value could conceivably climb again with another successful season – potentially putting him out of range. The club need a midfielder of his profile but ultimately it was decided to put resources this summer into signing attacking players, culminating in the £73.7m deal to sign the Slovenian forward Benjamin Sesko. Brighton are in a strong position thanks to such progress by the player early into his five-year deal, giving them the option of turning down offers this summer. There is an argument that United would be better served looking in the same European market for a player of similar promise, although few have done that as well as Brighton. They also have a number of options for his potential successor. Baleba has missed much of Brighton's pre-season with a knee injury sustained in June, but it is expected that he will be match-fit in time for the first game of the season against Fulham, having returned to training. Baleba will at some point be the next major Brighton sale given the range of his ability and the impact he made last season. He was another astute pick uncovered in France by the club's data analytics in the 2022-23 season. He was signed on the basis of just 21 senior Ligue 1 appearances for Lille, as well as 13 games for Lille B in the French fifth tier – the sum total of his European football experience at that point having left Cameroon in January 2022. His great appeal is his ball-winning skills as well as the energy and guile that means he can break out of midfield. His adaptability across a number of positions, and his left-foot preference, also raises the premium on him. United must make sales as well, with both Liverpool and Chelsea having done so effectively this summer – and Manchester City in previous years. Currently, United and Chelsea are some distance apart on their valuation of Alejandro Garnacho, the Madrid-born Argentina international, one of those cast out by Ruben Amorim. The 21-year-old is valued at about £30m by Chelsea, with a lower bid from Bayer Leverkusen in the previous January window serving as a benchmark. There is also hope that Rasmus Hojlund might generate a fee, although the Italian market for him is currently offering loans.
