Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 423 posts

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#271

Post by gambiting »

pessimizer wrote: post #265
gambiting wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These sort of calculations are always missing a simple fact that no company on earth, not even Apple or Google shrugs off a 200M fine, no matter how little it is of their entire operating budget. It's the kind of money that gets people fired, even if it made no difference to the bottom line.

> It's the kind of money that gets people fired 1. It's not, and 2. Who cares if somebody gets fired for PR purposes? Especially with a severance that will make sure that their great-grandchildren will never have to work and your great-grandchildren will be paying them rent? Everybody doing tens of billions of $ of business shrugs off a $200M fine. They might even get a bonus and a plaque for coming up with a scam th…

>>Everybody doing tens of billions of $ of business shrugs off a $200M fine

Again, that's not how it works, although I know people have this romanticized view of big companies casually shrugging off 200M fines like nothing.

>>They might even get a bonus and a plaque for coming up with a scam that lasted so long before it blew up.

Again, cool idea for a book, but doesn't happen in reality. No one gets a pat on the back and a bonus for being fined 200M.

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#272

Post by aDyslecticCrow »

victorbjorklund wrote: post #152
schnitzelstoat wrote: post #49

It seems like quite a light punishment for selling such dangerous products that could literally kill people. The dodgy e-bike batteries have already been linked to several fires. bigclivedotcom takes apart some of the Temu stuff on YouTube and some of the electronics is atrocious.

Check will prowse. Western brands aren’t that much better.

But western brands can be sued or made liable with fines when a house burns down, which force them a minimum level of caution or risk-assessment when designing and selling their product. A random Chinese drop-shipper that vanish into smoke cannot, so all we can do is force the distributor take that responsibility in their place.

So Temu should be sued if a house burns down from a generic-brand e-bike that they imported and took money for.

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#273

Post by aDyslecticCrow »

hydrogen7800 wrote: post #75
jordiburgos wrote: post #60

Why there is a difference between selling and allowing to sell? If the product is sold in your site, you must be responsible of it.

> If the product is sold in your site, you must be responsible of it. But this is an internet store.

So we should give up regulating them? All stored are internet stores.

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#274

Post by nekzn »

thesimon wrote: post #232
munk-a wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know your mileage may vary in different areas of Europe but in Italy and Spain you'll find a plethora of random general stores that resell Aliexpress sorts of goods at a very low markup over direct ordering. The stock variety is obviously more limited but those stores are amazing and fit a really key need.

These stores are a big thing in Portugal as well, but doesn't really seem to be a thing in Germany. Closest I guess would be Action [1]. [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Nederland

How about TEDi?

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#275

Post by cubefox »

Symbiote wrote: post #200
dsign wrote: post #109

Say what you may of Temu, and I do think more vetting of certain goods is a good idea, but they fill a very real need. In the part of Europe where I live, the choice is only between intermediaries for the same products coming from China. The local intermediaries sell a very limited picking at staggering margins. And when it comes to certain things, like electronic components, the choice is between importing (old) Ame…

> In the part of Europe where I live I downvote comments like this, since they make the comment useless. No-one can vouch for or argue against the comment when it's some "part" of a continent of over 40 countries.

Exactly. Europe is not a country. Some countries in Europe are more different from each other than others are from the US.

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#276

Post by cubefox »

ahartmetz wrote: post #267
RobotToaster wrote: post #244

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> By the same logic, attempts to use policing to ensure lawfulness are a whack-a-mole exercise which will fail. That's basically how drugs won the war on drugs, yes.

But you can't legalize all crime. Drugs are special because they are (sort of) victimless.

Drugs are absolutely not victimless, except perhaps for caffeine.

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#277

Post by AnthonyMouse »

selfhoster1312 wrote: post #228
BrtByte wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But I still think chargers and children's toys are exactly where the line should be drawn

I think the line should be much earlier than that. But even with this very thin line, like the parent said, the deficient products are everywhere. Just look at the recalls in any major store here (Carrefour, Action, Leclerc). And that's for the main brands/distributors, go into any bazaar or market and you'll find the exact same products you find on Aliexpress/Temu, but with 10x price markup, like the parent said. Do…

There are generally two ways governments hold companies accountable for dangerous products.

The first is liability. If they're selling chargers that burn down houses, they get sued, and they don't want to get sued, so they don't want to sell chargers that burn down houses.

The second is regulatory requirements. This one is generally worse. The incumbents capture the regulators to e.g. have the law require their technology or raise costs to exclude new entrants. The rules are often inefficient or poorly conceived with bad cost/benefit ratios. And companies making products that are dangerous but nevertheless comply with the rules will point to their checkbox compliance to dodge liability.

The problem with the first one is that it doesn't work well against companies outside the jurisdiction, because then you can't sue them, and the importer will be a small entity that just files for bankruptcy if you try to sue them. But the second one has the exact same problem. They sell products that don't comply with the rules; if you try to fine them they're outside the jurisdiction and the only thing in the jurisdiction is a fungible importer that will dissolve if you try to go after them.

In that environment the thing that actually works is the third thing. Customers expect some products to be dangerous and rely on product reviews to determine which ones. But this is the thing the second one inhibits, because then overpriced incumbents use their influence over the laws to target any new supplier that tries to establish a trusted brand, which causes the foreign suppliers to have to sell through dozens of unknown labels so they can continue to dissolve them if any of them get prosecuted. And then customers are stuck choosing between the overpriced incumbents and the far cheaper foreign suppliers that may or may not be safe, with many people risking the latter because they have so much lower margins.

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#278

Post by rahimnathwani »

pacman1337 wrote: post #161

The past making quality clothing was difficult, cutting it right, sourcing the right patterns designs materials, stitching it took care etc. In our world making quality clothing should be easy with all the technology but what we see in bad quality that you wash a few times and it is trash. It is uglier designs than in the past etc. It makes no sense. It is like a conspiracy where people don't want to sell quality clo…

Just go to Uniqlo.

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#279

Post by IshKebab »

notaustinpowers wrote: post #176
radiator wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't understand how €200M can ever be considered a "penny slap".

€200M accounts for roughly 1.6% of their €12.3B net profit in 2025. The average EU salary is €39,808. It's equivalent to a €636 fine. Though this is based on income, not net profit so it's actually more impactful to the average person than to Temu.

Sure but this €200m fine is just the first fine. Its the first hit of the stick. It isn't meant to be crippling - it's just mean to be serious enough that they take action to avoid future fines, which might be a lot bigger.

Re: EU fines Temu €200M for allowing sale of illegal products

#280

Post by nickff »

aDyslecticCrow wrote: post #264
nickff wrote: post #149

The EU's approach to imports from PRoC is the regulatory equivalent of trying to 'test your way to quality' (which Deming showed to be nearly impossible). Attempts to use regulatory fines and prosecutions to ensure compliance from PRoC products is a whack-a-mole exercise which will fail.

Passing the CE certification is annoying, but hardly a significant cost compared to design of the product. Notably, the law forces companies to put their ass on the line if things to wrong, by registering their name to the product they produce. We also have laws making the store selling the thing that burnt down your house liable for what they sold, which make them think twice about selling a random off-brand fire-st…

CE itself is the least of the issues, and is indeed relatively low-cost for mass-market consumer goods, (this is not true for niche products,) when it is taken into account in the original product design.

From my perspective (as a non-resident EU citizen), it seems the EU is addicted to cheap products from PRoC which do not comply with a variety of EU regulations, because actually enforcing compliance would drive up consumer prices, which is politically unacceptable. This also seems like the reason of the lackadaisical enforcement of regulations.

Essentially, allowing in PRoC products, then complaining is an easy way to keep prices low while continuing to introduce regulations which are expensive to comply with.

Put another way: why does the EU manufacture a declining share of its consumer products, at a time when automation makes mass-production less labor dependent than ever for many industries.

Post reply on HN