The foreign subsidies case against Temu has entered a sharper phase. The European Commission has told the marketplace’s parent group that it may have obstructed investigators during an unannounced inspection, a step that carries the risk of heavy fines and signals how firmly Brussels intends to police non-EU state support.
On 31 July 2026 the Commission sent a Statement of Grounds to PDD Holdings Inc. and its subsidiary WhaleCo Technology Limited, the entities behind Temu in the European Union. Officials set out their preliminary view that the companies obstructed an inspection carried out under the Foreign Subsidies Regulation, Regulation (EU) 2022/2560.
Investigators searched the companies’ premises in Dublin between 2 and 5 December 2025. The Commission says Temu failed to hand over information about how it organises and manages its EU operations, the IT systems that run those activities, and specific business records.
A Statement of Grounds is not a final ruling. It gives the companies a formal chance to reply before the Commission decides whether a breach occurred. If regulators confirm obstruction, they can impose fines of up to one percent of annual turnover and periodic penalty payments to force cooperation.
Temu rejects the reading. The company said it does not agree with the preliminary findings and insisted it cooperated fully and complied with every request during the inspection. You can read the Commission’s announcement in its official press release.
The dispute matters well beyond one retailer. The Foreign Subsidies Regulation lets Brussels examine whether financial support from outside the bloc distorts competition inside the single market. Enforcers see it as a tool to level a playing field that EU state aid rules already tilt toward European firms.
The obstruction question also tests the Commission’s investigative muscle. Regulators depend on candid access to records and IT systems, and a marketplace that moves millions of low-value parcels leaves a vast digital trail. If companies can stonewall inspectors without consequence, the wider subsidy probe loses its teeth.
For consumers and rival retailers, the stakes are concrete. European sellers have long complained that platforms shipping directly from China undercut them on price while facing lighter scrutiny. A firm foreign subsidies finding would strengthen the case for tighter oversight of those flows.
The companies now have time to respond in writing and can request a hearing. The Commission will weigh those arguments before it decides on any penalty, and a separate examination of possible distortive subsidies continues in parallel.
The outcome will shape how far Brussels can reach into the operations of global platforms. A tough line would tell every large non-EU trader that inspections are not optional, while a cautious one would invite more of the resistance regulators say they encountered in Dublin.




