Choice can get this wrong — tell us if something's off.
1–16 of 16
Labor & working conditionsAllegation
Shein is accused of using forced labor and copying designs
Shein is accused of using forced labor and copying designs, with investigations revealing over-70-hour workweeks and allegations of forced labor in China's Uyghur region.
An investigation this year by the Swiss-based non-profit group Public Eye found that people employed to produce garments for Shein routinely work more than 70-hour weeks; there were allegations of forced labour in the Uyghur region of China; and the company had a “cavalier approach to design appropriation”, which has led to a string of lawsuits relating to allegedly copied garments.
Labor & working conditionsAllegation
Shein is accused of forced labor
Shein is accused of forced labor through its supply chain.
Shein is also under investigation for its alleged human rights violations through use of forced labor, along with concerns related to environmental and health risks.
Corporate conductRecall
Shein recalls Michley children's pajamas for burn hazard
SHEIN recalled Michley children's pajamas due to a burn hazard risk, violating mandatory children's sleepwear safety standards.
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Michley Children's Pajamas Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Burn Hazard; Violate Mandatory Standard for Children's Sleepwear
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Michley Children's Pajamas Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Burn Hazard; Violate Mandatory Standard for Children's Sleepwear
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Michley Children’s Pajamas Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Burn Hazard; Violate Mandatory Standard for Children’s Sleepwear | Division of Homeland Security and Emergency Services
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Michley Children’s Pajamas Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Burn Hazard; Violate Mandatory Standard for Children’s Sleepwear
Climate & energyConfirmed
Shein fined €40m for deceptive practices
Shein received a €40m penalty from France's competition authority for deceptive commercial practices.
The Italian Competition Authority (AGCM) announced on Monday that it had issued fast fashion company Shein with a €1 million fine for “misleading and/or deceptive environmental messages and claims”.
“Through its website https://it.shein.com and other promotional and/or informational online pages, the company disseminated environmental claims within the sections #SHEINTHEKNOW, evoluSHEIN, and Social Responsibility that were, in some instances, vague, generic, and/or overly emphatic, and in others, misleading or omissive,” said AGCM in a statement.
AGCM said these proposals were “vague and generic” and “were even contradicted by an actual increase in Shein’s greenhouse gas emissions in 2023 and 2024” …An 11-month investigation by the DGCCRF found that Shein had engaged in “misleading commercial practices towards consumers”, particularly “on the reality of the price reductions granted and on the scope of the commitments concerning environmental claims”.
Authorities gave the fine to Infinite Styles Services Co. Limited, a Dublin-based company that manages Shein's website in Europe.
In particular, AGCM criticised Shein’s claims about recyclability and its “circular system” for minimising waste, which were “found to be either false or at least confusing”.
…Italian officials also contested Shein’s statements on its greenhouse gas emissions targets.
Shein accepted the fine and said it had already taken steps to rectify the breaches after it was notified by the regulator last year.
The French competition and anti-fraud office said the investigation found Shein used "deceptive commercial practices toward consumers regarding (...) price reductions," with the fine handed down with the blessing of the Paris prosecutor's office.
Shein hit with €40 million fine in France over 'deceptive commercial practices'
The Italian fine was announced just over a month after France’s directorate for competition, consumer affairs and fraud prevention handed Shein a €40m penalty for “deceptive commercial practices”.
Corporate conductSettlement
Shein settles consumer protection lawsuit for $700,000
Sonoma County District Attorney Carla Rodriguez, along with the District Attorneys of Napa, Los Angeles, and San Francisco Counties, announced today the settlement of a consumer protection lawsuit against Shein, a global ecommerce company specializing in “fast fashion.” Defendants will pay a total of $700,000 in civil penalties and investigative costs to settle the civil law enforcement complaint, which alleged the defendants engaged in unlawful business practices by failing to properly notify consumers or offer them refunds when their orders failed to ship on time.
Fast Fashion Company Shein Settles Consumer Protection Lawsuit for $700,000 – COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
Fast Fashion Company Shein Settles Consumer Protection Lawsuit for $700,000
LOS ANGELES – Global fast fashion retailer Shein will pay $700,000 to settle a civil lawsuit brought by the District Attorney’s Offices of Napa, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sonoma counties.
Corporate conductAllegation
Shein is accused of advertising misleading product claims
Shein is accused of advertising products with false reference prices and falsely implying temporary discounts that never expire.
Suppliers were coerced to “agree” to adverse statements and false statements, including terms falsely claiming that products sold on Temu were owned by Shein, even when they were independently developed, as well as documents misrepresenting certain Case 1:23-cv-03706 Document 1 Filed 12/13/23 Page 53 of 100
Although the scale of Shein’s unlawful copyright scheme is currently unknown, it likely implicates numerous copyright registrations and likely thousands of DMCA notices against Temu and the innocent suppliers who dared to offer U.S. consumers competing products.
And Shein does not update the references prices daily.
On information and belief, most if not all Shein-branded Products on the Website are represented as being discounted from a substantially higher reference price; during the majority of any given calendar year.
Shein’s representations that the products were on sale, that the products had a specific former and regular prices, and that consumers were receiving genuine discounts from the reference prices, were false and misleading.
Among other things, Shein affirmatively misrepresented the reference prices of products, which thereby misled and deceived consumers into believing that they were buying products at substantially discounted prices.
Whether Shein’s deceptive pricing scheme using false reference prices constitute an “unlawful,” “unfair,” or “fraudulent” business practice in violation of the California Unfair Competition Law, Cal.
Plaintiffs and Class members could not have reasonably discovered Shein’s practice of running perpetual sales, based on deceptive reference prices and sale prices, at any time prior to commencing this class action litigation.
Shein violated and continues to violate the CLRA by engaging in the following practices prohibited by California Civil Code section 1770(a) in transactions with Plaintiff s and the Class which were intended to result in, and did result in, the sale of Shein’s products: a.
An award to Plaintiff s and the proposed Class and subclasses of restitution and/or other equitable relief, including, without limitation, restitutionary disgorgement of all profits Shein obtained from each Plaintiff and the proposed Class as a result of its unlawful, unfair and fraudulent business practices described herein; c. An injunction ordering Shein to cease the false advertising and unfair business practices complained of herein; d. An award of all economic, monetary, actual, consequential, and compensatory damages caused by Shein’s conduct; Case 4:26-cv-04062-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/05/26 Page 59 of 60
Alternatively, on information and belief, Shein is the primary seller of the foregoing products to U.S. customers.
This deceptive practice has allowed Shein to reap billions of dollars in revenues from the U.S. alone, all at the expense of unsuspecting customers who believ e Shein’s sales prices are genuine, discounted, bargain prices.
17 Likewise, in July 2025, the French antitrust authority (DGCCRF) fined Shein 40 million euros for using fake discounts and other deceptive business practices to mislead its customers.18 After a review of Shein’s website from October 1, 2022 to August 31, 2023, it found that 57% of advertised deals for all products sold through Shein’s platforms were not, in fact, offering a lower price; 19% had less of a discount than advertised; and 11% were in fact price increases.19 17 https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c62vq1mnndno (last accessed April 28, 2026).
Shein’s marketing gave consumers the false impression that the products were regularly offered and sold for a substantially higher price in the recent past than they were and, thus, led to the false impression that Shein’s products were worth more than they were.
Plaintiffs are among the many customers who were deceived by Shein’s practice and purchased Products from Shein’s website and/or app at fake discounted prices.
Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and the Class, seek an injunction from this Court prohibiting Shein from engaging in the patterns and practices described herein, including putting a stop to the deceptive advertisements and false reference prices in connection with the sale of products on the website.
As a result of Shein’s unfair business acts and practices, Shein has and continues to unfairly obtain money from Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class.
Regarding section 1770(a)(9), (7), and (5), Shein advertised products on the Website with the “intent not to sell” them as advertised, and misrepresented characteristics and standards because, as explained herein, (a) the reference prices on the website misled customers into believing (i) the products were previously offered for sale and/o r sold on the Website at the higher reference prices on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time, and (ii) the products were valued in the market at the advertised reference prices but were being sold at a genuine bargain, and (b) Shein falsely represents the products as temporarily discounted when in truth the discount never expires or is effectively reinstituted upon expiration.
Whether Shein’s deceptive pricing scheme using false reference prices constitutes false advertising in violation of the California False Advertising Law under Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq.
On information and belief, most if not all the foregoing products were sold to U.S. customers exclusively by Shein.
Shein’s deceptive marketing gave consumers the false impression that the products were regularly listed or sold on the Website for a substantially higher price in the recent past than they were and, thus, led to the false impression that Shein’s products were worth more than they were.
Plaintiff continues to be interested in purchasing clothing at discounted prices, but she will be unable to trust and rely on Shein’s advertising, and so will not purchase the products from Shein.
In addition, Shein had a duty to conspicuously disclose the truth about its pricing deception, including that the reference prices advertised on the Website were not prices at which Shein’s items were regularly listed or sold on the Website in the recent past, and in truth, Shein’s products are typically not offered or sold on the Website at the advertised reference prices.
Shein’s deceptive marketing practice gave consumers the false impression that its products were regularly listed or sold on the Website for a substantially higher price in the recent past than they actually were and thus led to the false impression that the products were worth more than they actually were.
For instance, in May 2025, the European Union issued a statement that Shein was using fake discounts to dupe customers into purchasing their products at perceived bargains.
Regarding section 1770(a)(13), Shein made false or misleading statements of fact concerning the “existence of” and the “amounts of price reductions” because (a) no true price reductions existed in that Shein’s products were rarely, if ever, offered for sal e and/or sold on the Website at the higher reference prices, let alone on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time and (b) the advertised reference prices were not prevailing market prices because, on information and belief, the products were not predominantly offered or sold on the Website (or in the marketplace) at the reference prices for a reasonably substantial period of time.
Beyond that, Shein’s Products sold on its e-commerce stores not only have a market value lower than the promised former and regular price, the market value is also lower than the discounted “sale” price.
Shein did not verify that the advertised reference prices were the prevailing market prices within the preceding three months.
In addition, Shein had a duty to conspicuously disclose the truth about its pricing deception, including that (a) the reference prices advertised and published on the Website were not prices at which Shein’s items had been offered and/or sold on the Website in the recent past on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time, ( b) Shein’s products rarely (if ever) were offered or sold Case 4:26-cv-04062-KAW Document 1 Filed 05/05/26 Page 55 of 60
In addition, Shein had a duty to conspicuously disclose the truth about its pricing deception, including that the reference prices advertised on the Website were not prices at which Shein’s items were listed or sold on the Website in the recent past on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time, and in truth, Shein’s products are typically not offered or sold on the website (and/or in the marketplace) at the advertised reference prices.
The products are also all sold by Shein on the Website and fall under the umbrella of clothing and accessories.
Whether Shein’s use of false reference prices on products offered on their Website during the Class Period was material.
Shein portrays itself as a consumer-first company that “put[s] customers at the very heart of our business ” by delivering fashionable items “accessible to all .”2 However, its claimed “sales” are little more than deceptions intended to entice customers to purchase items at “discounts” relative to illusory and misleading reference prices.
Shein employs these advertising practices to falsely convey that the product was listed or sold on the Website at the reference price in the recent past and for a substantial period of time, and the product is valued at the reference price, but is now being sold to the customer at a genuine discount.
In addition, Shein had a duty to disclose the truth about its pricing deception, including, among other things, that the reference prices advertised and published on its Website were not, in fact, prices at which Shein’s items were listed or sold on the Website in the recent past for a reasonably substantial period of time, but in truth, the products rarely, if ever, were offered or sold at the advertised reference prices.
Shein engaged in this deception to Plaintiffs and the Class’s detriment to increase Shein’s own sales and profits.
Yet Shein’s use of inflated reference prices, strikethrough pricing, and discounting, all lead reasonable consumers to believe that the Products in fact had been listed for sale and sold on the Website, at the former and regular price, in the recent past, for a substantial time.
Shein knew that such products had rarely, if ever, been offered or sold on its Website at the reference prices.
Shein does not independently verify that the reference prices are the prevail ing market prices at which the products are listed for sale by Shein for a substantial period of time and in substantial quantities.
Shein made false or misleading statements of fact concerning the existence of and the amounts of price reductions because, as explained herein, (a) the advertised reference prices misled customers into believing the products were previously offered for sale and/or sold on the Website at the higher reference prices on a regular basis for a reasonably substantial period of time, and (b) the advertised discounts are fictitious or exaggerated.
As a direct and proximate result of Shein’s misleading and false advertisements, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have suffered injury in fact and have lost money.
Shein’s sale of products on the Website to Plaintiff s and the Class were “transactions” within the meaning of California Civil Code section 1761(e).
According to a court filing by lawyers from the Texas attorney general's office, the state sued Shein over "deceptive trade practices" on Feb.
20, 2026, complaint, lawyers for the Texas attorney general's office claimed six defendants collectively referred to as "Shein" violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which protects consumers in the state from false, deceptive or misleading business practices.
Texas AG sued Shein over deceptive trade practices. We unpacked lawsuit | Snopes.com
The Texas attorney general's office sued Shein for claimed violations of the state's Deceptive Trade Practices Act, alleging that the company made false representations about the quality and safety of its products, citing research that found harmful chemicals in Shein's products at levels exceeding some non-U.S. regulations.
20, 2026, complaint, lawyers for the Texas attorney general's office claimed six defendants collectively referred to as "Shein" violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, which protects consumers in the state from false, deceptive or misleading business practices.
According to a court filing by lawyers from the Texas attorney general's office, the state sued Shein over "deceptive trade practices" on Feb.
Corporate conductRecall
Shein recalls children's pajama sets due to burn hazard
SHEIN recalled children's pajama sets sold exclusively at SHEIN.com due to a burn hazard and violation of federal flammability regulations.
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Children's Pajama Sets Due to Burn Hazard; Violation of Federal Flammability Regulations; Sold exclusively at SHEIN.com
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Children's Pajama Sets Due to Burn Hazard; Violation of Federal Flammability Regulations; Sold exclusively at SHEIN.com
Corporate conductAllegation
Shein is accused of making misleading sustainability claims
Shein is accused of making misleading claims about its sustainability practices, prompting an antitrust investigation in Italy in 2024.
Shein has also attracted negative attention overseas, including in Italy, where, in 2024, antitrust regulators opened an investigation over allegations that it made misleading claims about its sustainability practices.
Corporate conductRecall
Shein recalls pull and chew teething toys
SHEIN recalled pull and chew Montessori teething toys due to choking hazard risk.
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Pull and Chew Montessori Teething Toys Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Choking Hazard; Violate Mandatory Standard for Toys
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Pull and Chew Montessori Teething Toys Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Choking Hazard; Violate Mandatory Standard for Toys
Corporate conductRecall
Shein recalls spiral toys for choking hazard
SHEIN recalled spiral toys due to risk of serious injury or death from choking.
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Spiral Toys Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Choking Hazard; Violate Small Ball Ban
SHEIN Distribution Corporation Recalls Spiral Toys Due to Risk of Serious Injury or Death from Choking Hazard; Violate Small Ball Ban
Privacy & surveillanceConfirmed
Shein fined for data breach
Shein, along with Romwe and Zoetop, was fined $1.9 million by the New York Attorney General over a 2018 data breach that exposed 39 million Shein and seven million Romwe accounts.
Worldwide, 39 million SHEIN account credentials were stolen, including the credentials of more than 375,000 New York residents.
Zoetop, which owns and operates the popular e-commerce brands SHEIN and ROMWE, had a data breach in which 39 million SHEIN accounts and 7 million ROMWE accounts were stolen, including accounts for more than 800,000 New York residents.
In October 2022, the New York Attorney General fined Shein, its affiliate Romwe, and parent company Zoetop for $1.9 million over its handling of a 2018 data breach in which 39 million Shein accounts and seven million Romwe accounts were stolen, including accounts for more than 800,000 New York residents.
Corporate conductRecall
Shein recalls Teckwe hair dryer brushes
SHEIN recalled Teckwe hair dryer brushes due to electrocution or shock hazard.
Consumers can request a refund from SHEIN and will be asked to confirm that they have thrown the recalled items away.
Decorative kitchen magnets sold on SHEIN recalled for serious injury, death risks - mlive.com
Thousands of decorative kitchen magnets sold nationwide on SHEIN are being recalled for violating federal safety standards and posing serious injury or death to consumers.
Wages & economic policyAllegation
Shein is accused of generating profit in Singapore instead of UK
Shein is accused of generating profit in Singapore instead of UK for tax purposes.
“Questions need to be asked as to how much of the economic value that Shein Distribution UK Ltd generates from its UK sales are actually being booked as profit in the UK and are subject to corporate income tax, and how much is being booked as profit in the tax haven Singapore.
Shein UK accused of moving ‘vast bulk of income’ to Singapore to cut British tax | Shein | The Guardian
Corporate conductSettlement
Shein settles for $700,000
Shein will pay $700,000 to settle a civil lawsuit brought by the District Attorney’s Offices of Napa, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sonoma counties.
LOS ANGELES – Global fast fashion retailer Shein will pay $700,000 to settle a civil lawsuit brought by the District Attorney’s Offices of Napa, Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Sonoma counties.
Corporate conductAllegation
Shein is accused of investigation by EU authorities
The European Commission and the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network allege an investigation into Shein's compliance with EU consumer laws.
The complaint comes four months after the European Commission and the network of consumer protection authorities in the EU known as the Consumer Protection Cooperation Network (CPC), launched an investigation into Shein’s compliance with Europe’s consumer laws.
Shein accused of ‘shaming’ customers into buying more than they can afford | Shein | The Guardian