YOUR
Search

    16.03.2026

    European Commission Investigation into Shein and the Implications of the Digital Services Act (DSA) for the Protection of Intellectual Property Rights


    1. Background to the Investigation

    On 17 February 2026, the European Commission opened formal proceedings against Shein, designated as a Very Large Online Platform (VLOP) under the Digital Services Act (DSA). The initiative falls within the framework of the supervisory powers conferred on the Commission to verify compliance with the obligations imposed on large digital platforms, in particular with regard to the circulation of illegal and counterfeit products within online marketplaces. Among the issues under examination is the possible presence on the platform of goods infringing intellectual property rights, including trade marks, designs and copyright. Shein was formally designated as a VLOP by the European Commission in October 2023.

     

    2. DSA Obligations Concerning Illegal Products and IPR

    The Digital Services Act introduces a system of responsibility and due diligence for online platforms, directly affecting the circulation of counterfeit products as well. The DSA replaces the previous intermediary liability regime established by the E-Commerce Directive (2000/31/EC), significantly strengthening the obligations placed on platforms.

    The most relevant obligations include:

    a) Notice-and-action mechanisms (Art. 16 DSA): platforms must establish systems enabling rights holders to easily report illegal content or products, including items that infringe intellectual property rights. The system must be easily accessible, equipped with a direct electronic channel, and capable of allowing sufficiently precise reports. The platform is required to communicate its decision to the reporting party, with an obligation to provide reasons in the event of a refusal.

    b) Trader traceability (Art. 30 DSA): marketplaces must collect and verify information on professional sellers operating on the platform — including business name, VAT number and bank details — in accordance with the "Know Your Business Customer" (KYBC) principle, with a view to reducing the presence of operators selling counterfeit products. Sellers who have not provided the required information or whose verification has failed may not operate on the platform.

    c) Enhanced obligations for VLOPs (Arts. 34–35 DSA): very large online platforms must: i) assess systemic risks, including the spread of illegal products, on an annual basis; ii) adopt mitigation measures, such as more effective control systems and enhanced moderation; iii) undergo independent audits of compliance with the measures adopted (Art. 37 DSA).

    d) Transparency and data access: VLOPs must provide information on how their systems operate and on the measures taken to counter illegal content and products, as well as share data with the Commission and authorised researchers (Arts. 40–42 DSA).

     

    3. The Focus of the Investigation: Counterfeit Products

    With specific regard to Shein's activity as a third-party marketplace, the Commission's investigation concerns in particular the possible inadequacy of the measures adopted by the platform to: prevent third-party sellers from selling products that infringe registered trade marks or designs; promptly remove items reported as counterfeit through notice-and-action mechanisms; ensure the traceability and proper identification of third-party sellers pursuant to Art. 30 DSA.

    In this context, the DSA serves as a complementary instrument to traditional IP rights enforcement, since it does not target the individual act of counterfeiting carried out by the third-party seller, but rather the governance of the platform that enabled the commercialisation of such goods.

     

    4. Possible Consequences of the Investigation

    Should the Commission find violations of the Digital Services Act, it could impose:

    • corrective measures to strengthen the platform's control systems (modification of notice-and-action systems, enhanced seller verification, periodic reporting obligations);

    • fines of up to 6% of the company's annual global turnover (Art. 74 DSA);

    • periodic penalty payments of up to 5% of average daily turnover for each day of non-compliance;

    • in cases of serious and repeated infringement, interim measures and, as a last resort, temporary suspension of access to the service in the EU (Art. 76 DSA).

       

    5. Conclusions

    The investigation into Shein provides a significant opportunity to reflect on the role that the Digital Services Act may play, indirectly, in the enforcement of intellectual property rights in the digital economy.

    The DSA strengthens the procedural responsibility of online platforms, imposing more stringent due diligence obligations in the management of potentially counterfeit products. This represents a step forward compared to the previous regime, but it does not eliminate the structural difficulties of IP enforcement in the digital context: the fragmentation of supply chains, the speed with which dishonest sellers reconstitute themselves under new identities, and the complexity of verification at a global scale remain open challenges.

    For rights holders, the mechanisms introduced by the DSA — in particular notice-and-action and trader traceability — offer additional protective tools, which complement rather than replace traditional IP remedies. The practical effectiveness of these tools will depend, however, on actual implementation by platforms and on the rigour with which the Commission exercises its supervisory powers.

    The outcome of the investigation into Shein will provide valuable guidance on the practical scope of the DSA in this area, but it is premature to regard it as a consolidated model: this is one of the first enforcement cases against a VLOP, and regulatory practice is still taking shape.

    AI Enters Trade Secret Protection
    On 10 June 2026, the Italian Council of Ministers approved two draft legislative…
    Read more
    Preliminary injunctions in IP matters and proceedings on the merits: Decree-Law No. 100/2026 implements the CJEU judgment in Case C-132/25
    Following its judgment of 23 April 2026 in Case C-132/25, M.M. Ristorazione Srl…
    Read more
    AI-generated content: the European Commission publishes the Code of Conduct on labelling
    The context: transparency as a pillar of the AI Act Yesterday, the European…
    Read more
    WHEN A FICTIONAL CHARACTER BECOMES IDENTIFIED WITH THE ACTOR: THE ITALIAN SUPREME COURT ON THE LIMITS OF COPYRIGHT PROTECTION FOR “THE MAN WITH NO NAME”
    By order No.12257 of 1 May 2026, the Italian Supreme Court (Corte di Cassazione)…
    Read more
    Trade Secrets and the Digital Omnibus: Protecting Know-How While Data Circulates by Operation of Law
    The issue, in brief The Digital Omnibus — the legislative package through which…
    Read more
    ESG and ‘Self-Declared’ Environmental Labels: what happens in Italy after 27 September 2026
    Legislative Decree 30/2026 radically changes the rules for self-declared…
    Read more
    Intellectual Property: Asset and Share Purchases (Italy)
    Our partner Paolo Lazzarino contributed to the chapter “IP: Asset and Share…
    Read more
    Generative AI and “hallucinations”: transparency by design in Italian consumer protection practice
    In the recent proceedings involving DeepSeek, Mistral AI and NOVA AI, the…
    Read more
    Court of Justice of the European Union, C-132/25: Italian IP preliminary injunctions cannot remain effective sine die without proceedings on the merits
    By judgment of 23 April 2026 in Case C-132/25, M.M. Ristorazione Srl v. Villa…
    Read more