_______ __ _______
| | |.---.-..----.| |--..-----..----. | | |.-----..--.--.--..-----.
| || _ || __|| < | -__|| _| | || -__|| | | ||__ --|
|___|___||___._||____||__|__||_____||__| |__|____||_____||________||_____|
on Gopher (inofficial)
URI Visit Hacker News on the Web
COMMENT PAGE FOR:
URI EU fines Temu â¬200M for allowing sale of illegal products
AllegedAlec wrote 3 min ago:
So many China shills running interference and whataboutism...
grizzo wrote 35 min ago:
I once bought one of those cheap portable consoles from them (or
Aliexpress) and after two month I was given a full refund as the
welding of the motherboard contained too much lead.
This news really doesn't surprise me that much.
londons_explore wrote 1 hour 7 min ago:
Did they actually sell $200M of illegal products, or is this a number
plucked from thin air?
ericmay wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
Why would they need to sell â¬200 of illegal products to be fined
that same amount?
Eric_Bulai wrote 1 hour 22 min ago:
This news has been circulating on the internet for a long time and it
is indeed real, but the question is, if people want to buy something,
they will look for alternatives.
tgv wrote 35 min ago:
If people want to be healthy and live, they wouldn't smoke, drink,
use meth, gamble, etc. What the people might rationally want, is not
what drives the market. The infamous invisible hand is just
addiction.
BrtByte wrote 1 hour 13 min ago:
People will definitely look for alternatives, but that doesn't make
regulation pointless
PowerElectronix wrote 1 hour 5 min ago:
It helps funding the EU and little else.
tgv wrote 34 min ago:
Here's your chlorine chicken burger, now with extra chlorine.
That'll be $39,95 please.
Eric_Bulai wrote 54 min ago:
Regulation slows down the problem, but demand creates the
solution so it doesn't really matter.
BrtByte wrote 1 hour 22 min ago:
The fine seems less interesting than the compliance deadline
pacman1337 wrote 1 hour 51 min ago:
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
clothes at a fair price. Like all companies got together and decided we
will sell crap clothes at cheap prices and good clothes at extortion
prices. There is zero correlation with actual costs.
nickff wrote 2 hours 6 min ago:
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.
ahartmetz wrote 20 min ago:
By the same logic, attempts to use policing to ensure lawfulness are
a whack-a-mole exercise which will fail.
So what else are you going to do? Paperwork up front for every single
product?
miohtama wrote 1 hour 12 min ago:
Even if it fails maybe you can get some political scores in the
process to get elected again.
pickleballcourt wrote 2 hours 16 min ago:
Iâm curious if its actually difficult or trivial for Temu to enforce
ninth_ant wrote 1 hour 49 min ago:
Itâs not simply difficult, itâs an existential threat to their
current business model.
Unless Iâm missing something obvious, enforcing regulatory
compliance from the army of hustlers that is their vendor market
would be expensive or impossible.
j0ba wrote 2 hours 19 min ago:
EU is a fine organization
f6v wrote 2 hours 14 min ago:
Feels like the EU is always going to find something to fine you over.
Think of it as a tax. The purpose is compensating for the lack of
notable domestic tech giants.
Ylpertnodi wrote 1 hour 36 min ago:
And stopping Temu from passing on junk, as in this case.
jeppester wrote 12 min ago:
That's the thing with these fines. 19/20 times they make a lot of
sense. But even so, there will be people saying "but why not this
other org" to which the answer is "Yes! Hand out more fines", not
"it's unfair, so just let everyone break the law".
woadwarrior01 wrote 29 min ago:
Amazon passes on the same junk, albeit at 2-5x the price.
maxglute wrote 2 hours 34 min ago:
How many dead babies or battery fires post Temu, seems like good
opportunity to conduct a before/after study on cost:ratio of EU
regulations.
0cf8612b2e1e wrote 2 hours 40 min ago:
⦠which found that a high percentage of chargers purchased through
Temu failed basic electrical safety tests. It also found that a high
proportion of baby toys posed safety risks, containing chemicals above
legal limits or featuring small detachable parts that presented
suffocation hazardsâ¦
Boring. I can probably find the exact same on Amazon. From the
headline, I was hoping the list of illegal products was going to be
something like enriched plutonium, RPGs, Lawn Darts, etc
mfld wrote 42 min ago:
Maybe for marketplace articles shipped from outside the EU. It's not
legal, so Amazon will surely have a close look (for directly sold
items), as well as any company shipping from within the EU.
Jerry2 wrote 2 hours 40 min ago:
The EU is only good at imposing massive fines and they like to regulate
technologies they have not created and don't even host them.
TEMO will more than likely just pass the cost of this onto EU
consumers.
OKRainbowKid wrote 2 hours 26 min ago:
As an EU consumer, I appreciate laws and regulations that ban selling
cheap junk that might burn my house down or poison my baby.
I take it you don't?
w4zz wrote 2 hours 16 min ago:
In my limited experience not all countries do think like this.
tialaramex wrote 1 hour 51 min ago:
It's a cultural thing yeah. Americans genuinely do on the whole
think that their approach is better. The good news I guess is
that if you're an American and you think "Well I don't" you can
(at least for nowâ ) just leave.
â If you lived in the German Democratic Republic (aka "East
Germany") in 1950 you could literally just walk to West Germany,
by 1961 all other borders are closed and fenced and in Berlin the
Wall is up and people who try to escape are being executed
routinely. This didn't happen instantly over night, but it took
about a decade to go from routine to "Vast majority of people who
attempt it are killed".
happyPersonR wrote 2 hours 50 min ago:
Does Amazon or eBay get the same fine? Haha itâs the same people on
all of these sites â¦. Just some dropshipping ?
zipy124 wrote 57 min ago:
I've been done by illegal electronics on Amazon too many times. They
don't seem to care at all. You can still buy chargers on them that
are in an advisory red list on gov UK....
input_sh wrote 2 hours 24 min ago:
Amazon is also under investigation under DSA, eBay is not big enough
(in the EU) to matter under this law.
dsign wrote 3 hours 16 min ago:
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) American stock with a German company as the intermediary, and
that's $$$$ and many weeks of shipping, or using Temu or Aliexpress.
There's something unpleasantly snobbish with the way business is done
here, a spirit of "if you have to ask the price, our business is not
for you". For example, in Instagram, "Local offerings" pop up all the
time in the feed. The ones which are truly local end up in a "call us
to know more" button, no pricing info disclosed. The ones that show
actual prices tend to be shell companies with no employees, no doubt a
thin wrapper around an importer from Asia.
munk-a wrote 12 min ago:
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.
thesimon wrote 6 min ago:
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]:
URI [1]: https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Action_Nederland
runarberg wrote 52 min ago:
My reaction to this sentiment is that they fill the same need in
Europe as Uber did in the USA. They found a way to operate in a
market while avoiding its regulations and are therefor able to offer
much lower prices as their competitors who still follow the
regulations.
Europe has historically had pretty strict consumer protection laws,
and ever since the end of the Cold War these consumer protection laws
have been slowly chipped away. When I was a kid for example companies
were not allowed to target children in their marketing material. When
American media became predominant in the continent, instead of
enforcing our own consumer protection laws against American
advertisers, regulators just ignored it and allowed it to
proliferate, effectively making ads targeting children legal in the
continent. Regulators have been showing the exact same inaction
towards Chinese retailers breaking our own laws as they did towards
American advertisers three decades ago. I foresee that consumer
safety laws getting the same fate as the ban on ads targeting
children.
Symbiote wrote 57 min ago:
> 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.
BrtByte wrote 1 hour 19 min ago:
But I still think chargers and children's toys are exactly where the
line should be drawn
selfhoster1312 wrote 11 min ago:
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.
Don't get me wrong. I think companies should be held to higher
standards: i just don't understand why only Temu is being held
responsible of the entire broken capitalist system.
retired wrote 20 min ago:
If you ban Temu chargers, people will go to stores to buy the
cheapest ones which are identical to the ones on Temu, just for 10x
the price.
tobz1000 wrote 11 min ago:
At least in the UK, the main high-street retailers will only
stock goods from reputable brands with a (relatively) decent
track record and safety standards. I don't believe there is any
intersection between products sold on Temu and e.g. Argos, John
Lewis.
RobotToaster wrote 3 min ago:
Identical chargers to temu ones are sold on amazon for 5x the
price.
DANmode wrote 42 min ago:
No, let them suck on the poison Happy Meal toy instead.
The line should be drawn by parents.
The paternalism really has gone too far,
and people are (incorrectly and dangerously) expecting to be
protected now.
greggsy wrote 12 min ago:
With that thinking, people would still be buying unlabelled
arsenic wallpaper.
Consumer standards are a net benefit to society.
> and people are (incorrectly and dangerously) expecting to be
protected now.
The general public hasnât the faintest idea how to
differentiate between a safe product and an unsafe one, and they
shouldnât have to
Freak_NL wrote 28 min ago:
It's all fun and games until your neighbour in a terraced house
or apartment building unwittingly starts an uncontrollable
battery fire. Electric scooters and those 'hoover boards' from a
few years ago are notorious when it comes to that, but plenty of
underspecced small electronics will fail spectacularly.
DANmode wrote 20 min ago:
Thatâs harder to disagree with,
but, youâre only going to achieve moving the cheapo builders
stateside where theyâre easier to enforce on.
That race to the bottom isnât going anywhere - if someone can
save a grand half-heartedly wrapping their own packs, theyâre
going to.
lopis wrote 1 hour 11 min ago:
My line is a little bit further back. Any electronics that will be
plugged to a wall... Lots of appliances are not safe.
ben_w wrote 45 min ago:
Yup. I've even had an (Amazon rather than Temu)
power-strip-and-USB combo noticeably sparking and tripping the
apartment circuit breakers when plugged in just 6 months after
purchase.
retired wrote 21 min ago:
> (Amazon rather than Temu)
That power-strip comes from the same manufacturer, it doesn't
matter if you order on Amazon or Temu.
beezlewax wrote 1 hour 58 min ago:
What part of Europe is that? Is it is in the EU?
victorbjorklund wrote 2 hours 5 min ago:
Yea, worst is the retail people who clearly hated Temu/Aliexpress etc
because they stand no chance at competing with them when they sell
the same things but at 10 times the cost (I donât blame them. Sucks
for them) but instead of just saying the truth that they hate the
competition they just make up these fake reasons âoh itâs low
quality stuff that will breakâ when itâs clearly the same stuff
from the same factories etc.
jeppester wrote 36 min ago:
If you played a boardgame, wouldn't you be upset if someone won the
game easily, because they decided to just break all the rules?
mytailorisrich wrote 2 hours 51 min ago:
There is a part of conservatism and resistance to change. Online
commerce has been seen as "suspicious" by some from the beginning to
the point that in, for instance, France free delivery of books is
banned... of course this just means that amazon.fr charges 1 cent,
instead but it is symptomatic of a state of mind.
Barbing wrote 2 hours 22 min ago:
Interesting! They tried using lockers so it could still be free:
URI [1]: https://www.connexionfrance.com/news/amazon-is-wrong-to-us...
ktallett wrote 3 hours 8 min ago:
There is some validity to a marketplace selling items from a larger
range of retailers, however the quality is so poor for many items
that it simply is no good for society in any way.
everforward wrote 2 hours 8 min ago:
> the quality is so poor for many items that it simply is no good
for society in any way.
There are some that are genuinely dangerous and bad for society,
but there are tons of goods that are "the same thing but half the
price because it lasts a quarter the time" that have genuine
utility.
Harbor Freight has basically made a drop-shipping business out of
it. I often have tools that I need but will probably use 4 times
in my life, and the Harbor Freight stuff is crap but will probably
work 4 times.
Copy that over a bunch of verticals and it starts to make sense.
Clothing for a costume I'll wear maybe twice, niche cooking gadgets
for very specific things, tools to do a one-time repair on a car, a
flash drive to turn over photos to family members, yada yada.
retired wrote 15 min ago:
> Clothing for a costume I'll wear maybe twice
There was a time where society didn't buy clothes to only wear
once or twice but would instead rent them for those occasions.
verall wrote 38 min ago:
I think the dirty secret is that a lot of it is not "1/2 the
price that lasts 1/4 the time" but "1/4 the price that lasts 9/10
the time" or "1/2 the price for the exact same product without
half of the budget going to marketing".
It's not all of it. Some things are seriously worse quality. But
really a ton of the "better quality" is just better marketing.
doubled112 wrote 2 hours 0 min ago:
> some that are genuinely dangerous ... tools that I need but
will probably use 4 times in my life, and the Harbor Freight
stuff is crap but will probably work 4 times
Forehead hit hood, but I caught myself so it was a "gentle"
reminder instead of a concussion. I should have splurged that
time I broke a socket tightening an axle bolt. 150 ft-lbs + 180
degrees is a fair bit of torque.
everforward wrote 32 min ago:
There are definitely things I wouldn't roll the dice on from
Harbor Freight.
Anything that unpredictably dumps large amounts of kinetic
energy on failure is one of those.
I had a buddy that bought the tool for getting car suspension
springs on from Harbor Freight, and I definitely wouldn't roll
those dice.
whimsicalism wrote 3 hours 11 min ago:
yes, i'm very in favor of the shift towards direct-to-consumer among
chinese retailers, but that might be because i'm not actually all
that sympathetic to small business
simplyluke wrote 1 hour 0 min ago:
I'm not all that sympathetic to small businesses that exist
functionally as drop shippers for the same products with the same
absence of support. Much in the same way I roll my eyes and go to
7/11 over the cute "local" markets that are supplied by the same
suppliers nationwide, and you end up in a shiplap-walled coffee
shop with $8 bags of chips that could exist anywhere.
Small businesses that do the work of curating a niche item, doing
QA work that's absent on the shipments from china, and then
offering much stronger aftermarket support/replacement/repair? That
is often worth a (substantial) premium over wondering if the item
showing up in a month is going to work as intended.
londons_explore wrote 1 hour 23 min ago:
There is totally a market for a global website which instead of
shipping goods direct from China by plane instead has local
warehouses 1 per city and can deliver to your house within a few
hours by motorbike.
Aka like Amazon but with much smaller margins.
The savings would come from the fact sea freight is so much cheaper
than air freight.
trollbridge wrote 45 min ago:
Thatâs called âWalmartâ
throw-the-towel wrote 10 min ago:
Not in Europe.
bibstha wrote 4 min ago:
Europe has plenty of dollar store equivalent.
Someone wrote 50 min ago:
And the losses from having warehouses storing zillions of
products that do not get sold for a long time.
Thereâs a reason the likes of Aldi and Lidl have limited
product choice.
10000truths wrote 31 min ago:
Aldi and Lidl deal with perishable goods. Temu (by and large)
doesn't.
ryandrake wrote 1 hour 25 min ago:
I recently bought some custom-built pool lighting directly from the
manufacturer in Ningbo, and I have to say, the sales, delivery, and
customer support I received was top notch. Their representatives
were fluent in English and competent, the product quality was
excellent (yes, I carefully inspected it upon receipt because it's
going into water), and the entire process from measurement to
delivery was fast and smooth. And, of course, the price was right.
BrtByte wrote 1 hour 15 min ago:
In a way it makes the Temu problem more frustrating
DANmode wrote 41 min ago:
Because itâs not a Temu problem,
itâs a problem of allowing the collapse of your own
civilization?
theragra wrote 3 hours 20 min ago:
Temu also should be fined for predatory marketing. Not sure if laws
exist, but dark patterns are everywhere.
I try to a avoid Temu, but they have some good traits, too, like quick
and convinient shipping.
hulitu wrote 1 hour 14 min ago:
> Not sure if laws exist, but dark patterns are everywhere.
I bet you never heard of Microsoft or Google.
ChrisArchitect wrote 3 hours 20 min ago:
[dupe]
URI [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48307237
econ wrote 3 hours 24 min ago:
This is something like an individual being fined $200?
Seems fine
acd wrote 3 hours 25 min ago:
Big corp penny slap on the fingers. I dont this amount will change
behaviour or incentive to make larger profit.
radiator wrote 1 hour 31 min ago:
I don't understand how â¬200M can ever be considered a "penny slap".
notaustinpowers wrote 1 hour 18 min ago:
â¬200M accounts for roughly 1.6% of their â¬12.3B net profit in
2025.
The average EU salary is â¬39,808. It's equivalent to a â¬636
fine. Though this is based on income, not net profit so it's
actually more impactful to the average person than to Temu.
dmurray wrote 1 hour 1 min ago:
Most people would find being fined a week's wages significant.
It's not what they'd expect to get for, say, murder, but worse
than any parking fine and enough that they'd give serious
consideration to not doing whatever they did again.
gambiting wrote 1 hour 10 min ago:
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.
looperhacks wrote 1 hour 48 min ago:
The theory is that this won't be the only fine if Temu doesn't fix
this. So yes, a slap on the fingers, but the fines should grow bigger
if Temu doesn't address this.
amelius wrote 2 hours 34 min ago:
A real slap on the wrist of the CEO by a wronged customer would leave
a more lasting impression.
throwfaraway135 wrote 3 hours 14 min ago:
From Claude: The â¬200 million penalty equals around 0.4% of the
global turnover reported last year by Temu's parent company PDD
Holdings.
According to Eurostat, the average gross annual salary in the EU is
around â¬39,800 per year for full-time employment. The average net
salary comes to roughly â¬2,461 per month, or about â¬29,500 net
per year.
0.4% of an average worker's gross annual salary = roughly â¬159.
Barbing wrote 2 hours 18 min ago:
Quick, reinterpret with your own faculties! (Model output got
itself banned here) - friendly message :)
gostsamo wrote 3 hours 5 min ago:
The fine is for activity in the EU, so compare it to their business
there. Comparing apples to advertisement fliers is useful only if
you are using the fliers as toilet paper substitutes.
alephnerd wrote 3 hours 18 min ago:
It sets precedent, and has already led to a (by Chinese foreign
policy standards) fairly vicious response [0][1][2].
This is also part of the EU's larger tariffs against China [3].
[0] - [1] - [2] - [3] -
URI [1]: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202605/1361926.shtml
URI [2]: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202605/1362200.shtml
URI [3]: https://www.globaltimes.cn/page/202605/1362161.shtml
URI [4]: https://www.ft.com/content/e28fe696-ac30-4543-a105-febc82789...
B1FF_PSUVM wrote 3 min ago:
> [0]
Ahah, China going Adam Smith on the EU.
Peacefully, so far. Let's hope they don't go "opium war" on free
trade.
exabrial wrote 3 hours 26 min ago:
I mean that was the whole point of Temu... buy shit dirt cheap because
over-regulation harms the consumer.
alephnerd wrote 3 hours 51 min ago:
This has been going on for a year now.
The EU began enforcing a small parcel tax directly against Temu last
May [0] and France has been strongly lobbying against Shein and Temu
[1]. The EU has also made Chinese overproduction a critical topic of
discussion for EU-China relations [2][3], and barring Temu and Shein is
backed by both unions and industrial groups within Europe [4].
All of this is linking to the EU's strategy of playing hardball against
Chinese support of Russia's invasion of Ukraine [5][6], as well as
pushing back against the Chinese perception that the EU is a has-been
[7] as well as conducting an active info-war against a European state
[8].
[0] - [1] - [2] - [3] - [4] [4] - [5] [5] - [6] [6] - [7] [7] - [8] [8]
-
URI [1]: https://www.ft.com/content/102e18d7-d06b-4405-a347-97bb3c37318...
URI [2]: https://www.ft.com/content/b1fdbad1-2793-4975-a10b-74bb928d3b1...
URI [3]: https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/society-equity/eu-lawma...
URI [4]: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/news/en/press-room/20260326IPR3...
URI [5]: https://www.lemonde.fr/economie/article/2025/09/15/les-industr...
URI [6]: https://www.bruegel.org/podcast/how-war-ukraine-reshaping-eu-c...
URI [7]: https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/osw-commentary/2025-01-20...
URI [8]: https://fddi.fudan.edu.cn/_t2515/57/f8/c21257a743416/page.htm
URI [9]: https://www.defense.gouv.fr/desinformation/nos-analyses-froid/...
f6v wrote 2 hours 11 min ago:
> Chinese overproduction a critical topic of discussion for EU-China
relations
Ah of course, I do want the state regulating what I can and cannot
buy when it comes to junk. Only approved goods should be allowed.
alephnerd wrote 2 hours 1 min ago:
European QoL is predicated on protecting European industry. Why
should European workers lose their jobs because you want to buy
something cheaper?
If you don't build nor buy European, you become a vassal of either
the US or China.
jordiburgos wrote 4 hours 11 min ago:
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.
SoftTalker wrote 3 hours 0 min ago:
Yes, this "section 230" treatment of online platforms is at the core
of why social media and the internet in general is full of garbage.
If you sell something on your site, or allow users to post something
on your site, you should have some liability for the consequences.
hydrogen7800 wrote 3 hours 59 min ago:
> If the product is sold in your site, you must be responsible of it.
But this is an internet store.
another-dave wrote 3 hours 59 min ago:
they are responsible for it, but it's useful in reporting to
differentiate between "fulfilled by" and "bought through"
madeofpalk wrote 4 hours 5 min ago:
Isn't this being held responsible for it?
manoDev wrote 4 hours 16 min ago:
Isn't there some kind of law to disallow imports without a CE / RoHS /
etc label? Why allow it to enter the EU, and then fine the seller
afterwards?
PowerElectronix wrote 58 min ago:
Laws are as good as they are enforced. With millions of widgets
entering every day, most being very low cost, there's very little
point in going one by one checking if they comply.
pixel_popping wrote 1 hour 12 min ago:
It's not enough, I routinely order things with obvious fake labels or
sometimes things I know ahead are clearly not CE compliant, and most
packages can't be open due to the large amount, until we have robot
warehouses, I don't think is solvable.
victorbjorklund wrote 2 hours 0 min ago:
How would it be enforced? It is around 16 000 000 packages per day.
pixel_popping wrote 1 hour 11 min ago:
Robots is the only way.
saaaaaam wrote 2 hours 39 min ago:
Who says the products donât have fake CE labels stuck on? A CE
label does not - as far as I can tell - have any security features.
okanat wrote 1 hour 27 min ago:
Yup, CE is self-declatory. To prove it, you need to actually check
the documentation from the manufacturer's web page. Usually there
are numbers for individual tests on the product.
TazeTSchnitzel wrote 3 hours 28 min ago:
With a few exceptions, those labels do not mean that the product has
actually been tested or actually complies with the standard. They are
a self-certification: CE means âI promise this complies with
European normsâ, but the entity deciding to print that on a product
may not be honest. Small fly-by-night operations on the other side of
the planet have little incentive to be honest.
Generally speaking, international direct-to-consumer e-commerce is a
problem for trying to enforce these kinds of rules. The whole model
of checks at the border works well for massive bulk shipments, which
not only are few enough in number that customs have a chance of doing
a proper job on them, but there's also a commercial importer taking a
large financial risk on the shipment and therefore 1) having an
incentive to ensure they import something safe to begin with, 2) they
can be practically fined/sued by authorities if they screw up. But
when you have myriad tiny operations selling direct to consumers, the
consumer is the importer, and there's no local representative for the
manufacturer that you can actually sue. It's effectively a quite
lawless area. Being able to do direct imports is an important
freedom, and this kind of laxity is inevitable, but it's
understandable the EU wants to do something about the flood of
poor-quality goods that are terrible for fair competition, the
environment, and health and safety.
s_dev wrote 3 hours 57 min ago:
The fine is the application of the law. Would be like getting
arrested and demanding to know why the authorities aren't getting
involved.
MichaelZuo wrote 3 hours 44 min ago:
I think the parent is questioning how the fine relates to removing
the goods from circulation?
Or is the intention of the law to allow for an unlimited number of
supposedly illegal goods to circulate freely within the EU, just
fined appropriately?
lefra wrote 3 hours 59 min ago:
For electronics without wireless functionality, it is allowed to
self-certify. Anyone could also print whatever label they want on
their products illegally (i.e. without doing the required paperwork
to self-certify).
The policemen controlling imports don't have the competency to check
for faults, so we get this situation where specialists regularly
sample the products, and heavy fines are issued to the importer.
galangalalgol wrote 3 hours 16 min ago:
And for electronics with wireless, they still just ignore
everything. No FCC ID, don't even have any silkscreening on the pcb
or markings on the ICs. Nothing gets enforced.
dwroberts wrote 4 hours 8 min ago:
They add fake labels, this has been happening for a long time
amelius wrote 3 hours 48 min ago:
Yeah they have the CE mark, but it means "Chinese Export". You can
recognize it by the C and E being closer together.
leni536 wrote 3 hours 38 min ago:
There is no such thing as "Chinese Export".
URI [1]: https://cemarkingassociation.co.uk/latest-news/ce-markin...
QuantumNomad_ wrote 3 hours 28 min ago:
There is such a thing. The Chinese Export one was specifically
created to intentionally be confusable with the real CE marking
(Conformité Européenne). And it works exactly as intended.
People see âCEâ and think itâs the real CE one but itâs
the intentionally confusable one. [1]
URI [1]: https://www.kimuagroup.com/news/differences-between-ce...
URI [2]: https://starfishmedical.com/resource/conformite-europe...
okanat wrote 1 hour 30 min ago:
There is a conspiracy theory for everyone it seems, even for
the educated. No there is no "legitimate" Chinese-mandated CE
that can ever be allowed in EU. It would completely destroy
the trade relationship and cause Chinese underwriter labs to
be completely banned from ever testing for CE marks.
HOWEVER, there are a lot of fake CE marks printed by dodgy
companies who make the same shitty products that gets
imported via Temu. They are already in the business of
selling contraband and dangerous factory seconds, no need for
conspiracies to give a legitimate twist to their contraband
business.
looperhacks wrote 1 hour 53 min ago:
This gets parroted all the time, but I have never seen any
proof that this is actually true. It's always this one image
comparing the two, but never any real example. It's just
unreliable sources copying from each other.
MobiusHorizons wrote 4 hours 11 min ago:
Are you suggesting opening every package to check for a CE? I think
fining after the fact is how those laws are enforced.
manoDev wrote 3 hours 7 min ago:
I see, the issue is those parcels are mailed directly, not from a
logistics operation already inside EU borders.
In my country the government is pushing those companies to have
local warehouses. So if items are bulk imported by the marketplace,
in theory it should be easier to inspect.
GJim wrote 3 hours 51 min ago:
> Are you suggesting opening every package to check for a CE?
In the old days, when an importer purchased Chinese goods in bulk
and resold them, import checks were commonplace.... AND the
importer was legally responsible for paying import duties and
selling goods to the public that were legal and met safety
standards.
Now that any individual can order direct from China (with cheap
subsidised postage!), the floodgates of untaxed and dangerous shite
are open.
One solution is to address the subsidised postage that makes this
state of affairs possible.
lokar wrote 3 hours 48 min ago:
Require the recipient affirm the package meets all legal
requirements, and personally assume liability for any violation.
victorbjorklund wrote 1 hour 58 min ago:
So hold the consumer liable for laws meant to protect the
consumer?
miohtama wrote 1 hour 8 min ago:
Holding a consumer liable for the broken crap they order
would be just, but political infeasible as long as there is
someone else to blame.
mc32 wrote 3 hours 28 min ago:
Thatâs unworkable: asking a recipient unfamiliar with
producers to know whether producer is reputable or not in
advance and if the producer is unscrupulous you expect every
affected buyer to follow up or be in violation of importation
laws?
lokar wrote 3 hours 9 min ago:
If you are not sure, buy from within the EU from an importer
who deals with this.
The old system of spot inspections worked because most import
volume was from known, repeat importers.
victorbjorklund wrote 1 hour 56 min ago:
So consumers should just pay for a random import company to
âpinky promiseâ that it is safe? It is well known that
most of the crap that is CE hasnât actually gone through
a million euro testing program. Itâs just a stamp. And if
something happens then well that LLC goes bankrupt (but
odds are low)
mc32 wrote 3 hours 7 min ago:
I think thats asking much from people some of whom easily
get scammed by phone banks in Eastern Europe, India etc.
many people will not put in that effort.
kvgr wrote 4 hours 17 min ago:
I am very pro free market, but Temu with data harvesting and selling
illegal projects should be banned together with tiktok...
victorbjorklund wrote 2 hours 4 min ago:
As if Amazon donât harvest data or have illegal products on its
marketplace.
hulitu wrote 1 hour 16 min ago:
Amazon is better: it lobbies the EU. Why do you think Temu got
fined ?
thesmtsolver2 wrote 3 hours 21 min ago:
Doesnât TEMU have CCP ties? Free market is for businesses and
individuals and foreign govt entities should not unfairly benefit
from a free market.
miohtama wrote 1 hour 11 min ago:
Doesn't Bezos have Trump ties?
kvgr wrote 2 hours 49 min ago:
Everybody in china that gets big has CCP ties. No way around it.
Their car manufacturers are all propped up by government.
guilhas wrote 1 hour 9 min ago:
Dont US law makers have stocks in the companies they regulate?
Without term limits? And Tesla even gets paid per car sold
America is not China, but how close is it getting?
cm2012 wrote 3 hours 7 min ago:
All big companies in China are partially run by the CCP. Just how
it works there.
nickff wrote 3 hours 9 min ago:
Every major PRoC company is required to have CCP ties; in addition
to 'paying for facilitation' by local officials, a certain
percentage of their employees must be CCP members.
thenthenthen wrote 3 hours 18 min ago:
Ties as in pay tax to ccp. In China Temu is called pinduoduo
(æ¼å¤å¤ï¼and you can buy some wild stuff there, the regulation
on mainland seems also pretty lax i mean.
frogcoder wrote 2 hours 19 min ago:
Sorry, ties, as CCP party committees inside private firms. And
in case of Temu, it also has a data-sharing agreement with
People's Daily [1], a CCP controlled media group.
Just image having a mandatory political party inside every
American corporation which the board has no control over.
1.
URI [1]: https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2024/05...
ale wrote 3 hours 41 min ago:
Iâd start with the immense packaging waste and shameless
overconsumption tricks that are banned in basically any other
industry.
holistio wrote 3 hours 58 min ago:
If you're "pro free market, but", you're not pro free market. That's
fine, but you might want to reevaluate whether you're actually for
it.
lokar wrote 3 hours 44 min ago:
Free markets can have strong rules. No other than Adam Smith said
they are needed.
hilariously wrote 2 hours 7 min ago:
I would even go further and say that the term really has to be
almost "equal" - equal access, equal rules, equal legislation or
the market isn't really free.
s_dev wrote 3 hours 55 min ago:
The US and China have standards as well and bodies to regulate
them. Regulation vs Free Market debate isn't a binary issue and is
a spectrum.
schnitzelstoat wrote 4 hours 27 min ago:
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.
victorbjorklund wrote 2 hours 2 min ago:
Check will prowse. Western brands arenât that much better.
1-more wrote 3 hours 22 min ago:
They sell adapters to turn oil cans into silencers. Each one should
be a violation of the National Firearms Act and subject to up to a
half million dollar fine [1] Nota bened; these are not per-se
illegal, but you need to sell them through a firearms dealer and pay
for an ATF tax stamp and only in states that have not banned them/all
NFA items.
URI [1]: https://www.atf.gov/media/25071/download
gambiting wrote 1 hour 8 min ago:
And hundred-watt lasers sold as "obstacle removers" where the can
blind people in less than a second from considerable distance.
thenthenthen wrote 3 hours 16 min ago:
This. Same for the Chinese mainland app, some wild stuff like that
being sold (firearms are highly regulated, but 1:1 copies seem to
be ok, maybe because of the high level of regulation?)
esnard wrote 4 hours 29 min ago:
Also discussed here:
URI [1]: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48307237
DIR <- back to front page