The European Commission has charged the Chinese online marketplace Temu for possible obstruction of a corporate inspection under EU competition law.

The Commission said Temu did not properly cooperate with an inspection carried out an unannounced inspection of the Dublin office of Temu’s parent company PDD Holdings Inc. (PDD) and its subsidiary WhaleCo Technology Limited (WhaleCo), which operates Temu in the EU, between 2 and 5 December 2025.

“The Commission preliminarily finds that Temu has infringed its duty to actively cooperate on multiple aspects related to the conduct of the inspection,” the Commission said in a statement.

It has sent a Statement of Grounds to PDD and WhaleCo, a document outlining the legal basis for potential action against both companies, and stressed that this does not prejudge the outcome of its investigation.

In a statement, a Temu spokesperson said: “Temu does not agree with the Commission's preliminary findings in its Statement of Grounds. Temu cooperated fully and complied with all the requests the Commission made during the inspection. We will analyse and respond to the statement of grounds and trust the Commission will reconsider its position.

“Temu also categorically denies having received any foreign subsidies that distort the internal market. Temu is committed to fair competition.” He added that the company generates enough cash flow through its own operating activities to sustain its EU operations.

The firm added that it is committed to cooperating with the Commission and complying with its obligations under EU law.

The Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) came into force in 2023 with the goal of protecting the EU market from distortions driven by foreign subsidies.

Article 17(1) of the FSR sets out that where a party subject to inspections refuses to submit to them or presents incomplete business records, the Commission can impose a fine of up to one per cent of its total turnover in the preceding business year.

In May, the EU Commission fined Temu €200 million for breaching the Digital Services Act by failing to adequately assess the risk of illegal products being sold on its platform.

---