WORLDEF Prime Antalya 2026 — Super Early Bird Discounts

Register Now

The EU’s Search to Balance China-origin E-commerce Pressure

China's E-Commerce

Turkish Ambassador Ömer Faruk Doğan writes on the EU’s growing pressure against Chinese e-commerce platforms and its implications for Turkiye.

China, which has made great strides toward dominating world trade, appears to have far exceeded its targets according to the first-half 2026 foreign trade figures. According to data from the China Customs Administration, China’s foreign trade volume in goods reached 3.75 trillion USD in the first six months. Within this framework, China’s exports in the first half of 2026 totalled 2.2 trillion USD, while imports totalled 1.58 trillion USD. In the first six months, China recorded a trade surplus of over 1 trillion USD.

According to the same data, compared with the same period last year, China’s exports grew by 13.4%, while imports grew by 22%. Total trade volume increased by 16.9%. China’s largest markets are led by the United States and the EU.

China’s E-Commerce Surge Puts Pressure on the EU and Turkiye Alike

China is striving to establish dominance not only in goods trade but also in e-commerce, and the EU appears to have been significantly affected by this China-origin e-commerce activity.

According to EU data, China’s e-commerce volume directed toward the European Union (EU) is growing exponentially, particularly influenced by platforms such as Temu and Shein. China’s e-commerce market volume in the EU has reached 167.4 billion dollars, and 91% of low-value packages under 150 euros entering the EU are of Chinese origin. This massive flow toward the EU corresponds to approximately 12 million packages per day. According to European Commission data, 4.6 billion low-value (under 150 euros) e-commerce packages of Chinese origin enter the EU annually, roughly 12 million per day.

China’s share of the EU’s low-price e-commerce segment has reached 91%. Within EU e-commerce, the highest demand is in the clothing and footwear category at 40.31%, followed by consumer electronics and home decoration products.

In order to protect its domestic market and prevent tax losses, the European Union has tightened controls and taxation on e-commerce packages arriving from China. In February 2026, it narrowed the previously applied customs-free exemption for low-value packages and introduced stricter VAT requirements for e-commerce platforms, as well as compliance obligations under the DSA and GPSR. Although these legal regulations placed some downward pressure on China’s growth in the EU market (an estimated 3.2% drag on the annual compound growth rate), they proved insufficient to produce the effect the market expected. For this reason, the EU has increased its pressure on Chinese e-commerce platforms, strengthening import controls on goods from brands such as Temu and Shein and raising taxes on packages valued at under 150 euros.

As this new measure, even the EU’s introduction of a flat 3-euro tariff on packages previously falling below the 150-euro customs threshold failed to produce the desired effect, prompting a serious review of the business models of Chinese online retail giants AliExpress, Shein, and Temu, with the aim of exerting real impact on these platforms.

This is regarded as the latest step in the official proceedings initiated in 2024 over violations of the European Digital Services Act (DSA). The Commission has stated that it has formed the view that AliExpress failed to establish an effective system for detecting and removing products that do not comply with legal standards, and that the platform, taking advantage of delays and possible disruptions arising from the intensity of EU controls, treated the matter lightly.

According to the European Commission’s investigation, despite repeated EU warnings, AliExpress continued to host large quantities of illegal products, including dangerous toys and hazardous cosmetics, leading the Commission to conclude that the platform had exploited the EU’s understanding and approach. The Commission further stated that it had determined AliExpress failed to properly enforce its sanctions policy, allowing stores that sold illegal products to continue actively selling on the platform even after being penalised.

It was also emphasised that the platform’s brand authorisation system, intended to prevent the sale of counterfeit goods, had proven ineffective, as it was being circumvented to offer counterfeit products despite protective measures for brands and sellers, and that insufficient measures had been taken to prevent such abuse. Taking all of this into account, on Monday, July 20, the European Commission decided to impose a 550 million-euro fine on AliExpress, which has 193 million users, for violating the Digital Services Act (DSA).

Prior to this new decision, at a session held before the European Parliament on March 23, experts from the Commission stated that following an examination of more than 30,000 products shipped by Shein, AliExpress, Temu, and Amazon, failure rates were found to be very high across many categories: 65% of cosmetics shipments, 60% of personal protective equipment shipments, and 63% of food supplement shipments were examined, and laboratory tests found health or safety risks in 81% of the products tested.

On the other hand, our country too is under trade pressure from China. According to recent statistics, the total foreign trade volume between Turkiye and China has reached approximately $ 53 billion. While Turkiye’s imports from China stand at roughly 49-50 billion dollars, our exports to China remain at 3.3-3.4 billion dollars. In light of these figures, Turkiye’s foreign trade deficit with China has risen above 46 billion dollars.

Within the framework of our Customs Union agreement with the EU, many countries with which we have signed FTAs, having increased their exports on the basis of the advantages Turkiye obtained under those FTAs, have unilaterally revised the agreements on the grounds that the trade balance had turned against them, and have imposed additional customs duties on Turkish-origin consumer goods. Many North African countries can be cited as examples of this.

It is inevitable that, in the long term, the unsustainable imbalance in our bilateral trade with China will have a significant negative impact on our medium-scale manufacturing SMEs, particularly those producing consumer goods. The number of retail chains selling extremely low-priced consumer goods, disconnected from any real cost logic, is increasing significantly across all our provinces, especially in shopping malls.

Although additional customs duties have been introduced for products entering the country via e-commerce by post, this has proven insufficient to curb the cost-detached pressure exerted by China and to restore balance in the domestic market.

Our current Customs Union agreement with the EU, based on Decision 1/95, directly enables Turkiye to adopt a common stance against third countries. It is important to emphasise this point, and it is legally possible for a similar process to be pursued in our own country, based on the laboratory examinations and assessments conducted by the European Commission’s SANCO and related units regarding third-country products.

It is considered an essential requirement that our Ministry of Trade effectively exercise its Market Surveillance and Inspection authority, that the relevant units under our jurisdiction, foremost among them the Turkish Standards Institute (TSE), which plays an active supervisory role in imports, evaluate the matter with the utmost care and fairness, that additional measures parallel to those of the EU be adopted without delay for the protection of both consumers and our SMEs against unfair competition, and that serious initiatives be undertaken to correct the otherwise inexplicable foreign trade deficit in our trade balance with China. It is likewise considered essential that the relevant provisions of the Customs Union Agreement No. 1/95 be evaluated in favor of our country, our consumers, and above all our medium-scale producers, and applied as a means of preventing unfair competition.

Ömer Faruk DOĞAN – Ambassador

The EU Has Launched a New Tax Era for Small Parcels in E-Commerce

small parcels

The European Union (EU) began applying a fixed customs duty of 3 euros as of July 1, 2026, on small parcels under 150 euros entering the union through e-commerce. The regulation is of particular concern to online marketplaces that have grown with low-priced products, such as Shein, Temu and AliExpress.

According to the Council of the EU, the practice was introduced because the current duty-free entry system causes unfair competition for EU sellers, health and safety risks for consumers, high levels of fraud and environmental concerns.

New Customs Era for Small Parcels

The new practice stipulates that a 3-euro tax will be charged for each different product classification in shipments under 150 euros entering the EU. Accordingly, if a shipment contains three different types of products, the total fee may rise to 9 euros; while 3 euros will be applied to small parcels containing multiple products of the same type. It was stated that 5.8 billion e-commerce shipments under 150 euros entered the EU in 2025, while this figure was 1.4 billion in 2022.

Impact on E-Commerce Platforms and the Retail Sector

The regulation increases pressure on China-based low-cost e-commerce models. Dirk Gotink, who leads the customs reform issue in the European Parliament, said the customs exemption no longer makes sense under old trade conditions; and that e-commerce has changed the system, especially with shipments originating from China. Gotink also stated that the exemption was being used in a way that created a competitive advantage against EU businesses.

It Will Partially Reflect on Consumer Prices

The new costs are expected to be partially reflected in consumer prices. AliExpress announced that for applicable products, the information “customs duties and VAT are included in the price” will be displayed; while for other products, import costs will be presented to customers before payment.

Amazon stated that in 2025, 97 percent of its EU shipments were fulfilled from warehouses within the union; and that import fees for products coming from outside the EU would be displayed before payment. Shein, meanwhile, increased its warehouse capacity in Wroclaw, Poland, as part of its preparations for the change and moved toward sending more products to the EU through bulk shipments.

Decline Expected in Air Shipments

Experts forecast a decline of between 10 percent and 35 percent in e-commerce air shipments to the EU after the new fees come into force. In this process, retail and e-commerce companies are expected to reshape their pricing, warehouse management, cross-border logistics and AI-powered operational planning. (small parcels), (small parcels)

New Return Requirement for Online Stores in Europe: One-Click Cancellation Era Begins

return

A new return regulation for online stores in the European Union entered into force on Friday, June 19, 2026. Under the new practice, e-commerce businesses selling online to consumers in the EU will be required to provide a clearly visible and easily accessible “withdraw from contract” button on their websites or mobile applications.

The regulation aims to make consumers’ right of withdrawal in online shopping more accessible. This will allow consumers to cancel an order or initiate the contract withdrawal process as easily as they purchase a product.

The Return Button Must Be Easily Accessible

Under the new rule, online stores will not be able to require consumers to contact customer service, fill out lengthy forms, or navigate through complex menus. The return or withdrawal function must be presented to consumers in a clear and understandable manner.

The button or equivalent digital function must be labeled “withdraw from contract” or with a clear expression carrying the same meaning. When the consumer clicks this button, they will be directed to a confirmation page where they can view the relevant order or contract information. In the final step, there will be a second confirmation function similar to “confirm withdrawal.”

Which Legal Provisions Does the New Regulation Rely On?

The regulation is based on amendments to Directive 2011/83/EU, known as the EU Consumer Rights Directive. Directive (EU) 2023/2673 added a new Article 11a to this legislation. Article 11a makes it mandatory for consumers to be able to exercise their right of withdrawal through a digital function in distance B2C contracts concluded via an online interface.

The rule will apply to the sale of goods, services, digital content, digital services, and financial services within the scope of the regulation. The legislation covers not only EU-based businesses but also non-EU businesses selling to consumers in the EU.

Risks Are Increasing for Non-Compliant Businesses

Failure to comply with the new return regulation may have serious consequences for e-commerce businesses. According to assessments cited in the sources, if businesses fail to provide the required withdrawal button, the consumer’s 14-day withdrawal period may be extended. In addition, sanctions by national consumer protection authorities, administrative fines, and coordinated enforcement processes for cross-border infringements may come into play.

E-commerce businesses need to update their return policies, post-purchase processes, website interfaces, and application interfaces in line with this new regulation. According to experts, this step will strengthen consumer rights in Europe while increasing operational compliance pressure on online retailers.

DHL Suspends Globalmail Shipments from the UK to Europe Due to EU Customs Rules

DHL Globalmail

DHL Globalmail has decided to temporarily suspend certain e-commerce shipments from the United Kingdom to EU countries due to the European Union’s (EU) new customs regulations, which will come into force on July 1. The decision will particularly affect UK-based online sellers using the DHL Globalmail service.

As of July 1, the European Union will introduce a new customs procedure for low-value parcels worth up to €150 sent from outside the EU to member states. Under this framework, a fixed fee of €3 is planned to be applied to low-value e-commerce parcels.

DHL Globalmail Is Not Ready for the New Process

Under the new system, for postal services such as Globalmail, customs duties and related fees will need to be paid by the sender or declarant rather than the recipient. This means additional data sharing, new declaration processes, and operational obligations for sellers.

According to British news platform ChannelX, the DHL Globalmail service is currently unable to support this process because it does not have a Delivered Duty Paid (DDP) solution, under which the fees would be covered by the seller. Although DHL stated that it is working on such a solution, it has not provided a date for when the system will be ready.

Service to Be Suspended on June 24

As an unwanted but necessary consequence, DHL will temporarily suspend low-value parcels containing goods sent to the EU under Globalmail as of Wednesday, June 24. The final collection day will be Tuesday, June 23.

The suspension only applies to shipments containing goods sent to the European Union through DHL Globalmail. DHL Express services will remain available. In addition, UK online sellers that hold inventory within the European Union will not be affected by this change.

The EU Aims to Reduce the Flow of Unsafe Products

Brussels’ new regulations aim to control the flow of low-value products sent directly to consumers in the EU from third countries, particularly China. Last year, 5.8 billion low-value e-commerce parcels entered the European Union. This represents a 26 percent increase compared to the previous year.

EU inspections have found that many products shipped directly to consumers from third countries do not comply with product safety and regulatory standards. For this reason, in addition to the temporary customs fee, a permanent handling fee of approximately €2 per parcel is also on the agenda. This fee is expected to take effect on November 1, but the date has not yet been officially confirmed.

DHL’s decision is regarded as one of the first concrete examples of the operational pressure that the new customs rules will create on cross-border e-commerce logistics.

EU Parcel Delivery Market Shows Competitive Conditions, New Report Finds

Parcel Delivery in Europe

Parcel delivery markets in Europe appear broadly competitive, according to a new Copenhagen Economics study, as the EU reviews whether e-commerce parcel delivery should face new sector-specific rules.

The European Union’s parcel delivery market shows no evidence of structural competition problems, according to a new study by Copenhagen Economics prepared for PostEurop. The report comes as the European Commission reviews the EU regulatory framework for postal and delivery services and considers whether a future EU Delivery Act should extend regulation to e-commerce parcel delivery.

The study examines whether parcel delivery services linked to online shopping operate under effective competition. It focuses on three main areas: market structure, firm conduct, and market performance. According to the report, the evidence points to a sector with multiple operators, active entry, moderate margins, and a wide range of delivery options for consumers.

The issue has become more important as e-commerce continues to reshape the postal and logistics landscape in Europe. Letter volumes have been declining, while parcel volumes linked to online retail have grown. This has created a policy question for regulators: should e-commerce parcel delivery be treated as part of traditional postal regulation, or should it remain mainly governed by competition law and general market rules?

Parcel delivery markets in Europe

Copenhagen Economics argues that the current evidence does not support broad ex ante regulation of e-commerce parcel delivery. The report says that any new regulation should be based on a clear theory of harm and evidence of market failure. Without such evidence, it warns that regulation could create the risk of regulatory failure by weakening investment, innovation, and competitive pressure.

One of the report’s central findings is that e-merchants have significant bargaining power in the parcel delivery market. Online retailers and platforms are the direct buyers of delivery services. They select operators, negotiate contracts, and decide which delivery options are offered to consumers at checkout. Large e-commerce companies, in particular, can use their parcel volumes to negotiate better prices and service conditions.

The report also highlights that the European parcel delivery market includes a wide range of operators and business models. These include national postal operators, pan-European carriers such as DHL, DPD, UPS, GLS, and FedEx, regional providers, out-of-home delivery specialists, consolidators, and vertically integrated platforms such as Amazon, Allegro, and Vinted. This variety suggests that competition is not based only on price, but also on speed, convenience, network coverage, tracking, and returns.

Market concentration in parcel delivery is also lower than in traditional letter mail. The report states that the leading operator in parcel markets typically holds a share of around 37 to 50 percent, while the main operator in letter markets often holds between 82 and 94 percent. This difference is important because it shows that parcel delivery has a more distributed competitive structure than legacy postal services.

The study also finds that entry barriers in parcel delivery are relatively low. New operators can enter by focusing on specific parts of the value chain, such as last-mile delivery, parcel lockers, regional networks, or cross-border consolidation. The report notes that the number of domestic and cross-border parcel delivery operators has increased over the past decade, suggesting that new companies have been able to enter and expand.

Profitability levels also appear moderate. According to Copenhagen Economics, parcel operators’ EBIT margins typically ranged between 2.5 and 9 percent, averaging 5.5 percent in 2025. The report argues that these margins are not consistent with systematic excessive pricing. It also says that higher prices for cross-border delivery largely reflect higher costs, including longer distances, coordination between operators, customs procedures, and lower volumes.

For consumers, the report finds that parcel delivery services are generally accessible and affordable. Online shoppers across Europe can often choose between home delivery, parcel lockers, and pick-up or drop-off points. The report also says service quality is broadly similar across urban and rural areas, with reliable, timely delivery and high consumer satisfaction.

However, the report does not suggest that the market is free from all concerns. It acknowledges that competition issues can arise in specific cases, particularly where firms hold strong positions or where platform power affects logistics markets. But it argues that these concerns are better addressed through existing competition law rather than a broad new regulatory framework for parcel delivery.

The policy conclusion is clear: Copenhagen Economics says a new EU Delivery Act should avoid imposing sector-specific regulation on e-commerce parcel delivery unless clear market failures are demonstrated. It also argues that extending the postal universal service obligation to e-commerce parcels could create an uneven playing field between universal service providers and other parcel operators.

For Europe’s e-commerce sector, the debate matters because delivery is now a core part of the online shopping experience. Fast, affordable, and reliable parcel delivery affects conversion rates, customer satisfaction, marketplace competition, and cross-border trade. As the EU considers its next regulatory steps, the report suggests that policymakers should be cautious about applying traditional postal rules to a fast-changing parcel delivery market.

EU Fines Temu Over Unsafe Products

Temu EU Fine

TEMU EU Fine

The European Union has fined Chinese online retailer Temu €200 million, or around $232 million, after finding that the platform failed to properly protect consumers from illegal and unsafe products. The decision marks one of the most important enforcement actions under the EU’s Digital Services Act and sends a clear message to global online marketplaces: rapid growth will not excuse weak product safety controls.

The European Commission said Temu failed to diligently identify, analyse and assess systemic risks associated with illegal products offered on its platform. The case focused on products such as hazardous toys, baby items and unsafe electronics that did not comply with EU consumer safety rules.

Temu EU fine puts marketplace safety and ecommerce compliance under the spotlight

The fine follows earlier EU findings that Temu users faced a high risk of being exposed to non-compliant goods. According to reports, the investigation included mystery-shopping exercises that found unsafe items available to consumers, including baby toys containing dangerous chemicals and faulty electronic chargers. Regulators argued that Temu’s internal risk assessment was not sufficient for the scale and nature of its marketplace operations.

Temu, owned by PDD Holdings, has disputed the penalty, calling it disproportionate. The company has said it has improved its compliance systems and has continued to cooperate with regulators. However, the Commission has also required Temu to submit an action plan explaining how it will address the violations. If the response is considered insufficient, further penalties may follow.

For the ecommerce industry, the case is significant because it shows how the Digital Services Act is moving from theory to enforcement. The DSA requires very large online platforms to assess and reduce systemic risks, including the sale of illegal goods, consumer harm, manipulative platform design, and risks associated with recommender systems. In practice, this means marketplaces must do more than remove problematic listings after complaints. They are expected to build stronger preventive systems.

This is especially relevant for fast-growing cross-border ecommerce platforms. Temu’s business model is built on low prices, a wide product range and direct access to global consumers. That model can drive strong commercial growth, but it also increases the operational challenge of monitoring sellers, product quality, safety documentation, and compliance with local regulations.

The EU’s decision also reflects a wider regulatory shift in online retail. Authorities are increasingly treating marketplaces not only as technology platforms, but as key actors in consumer protection. This changes the compliance burden for platforms that connect third-party sellers with consumers. Product safety, seller verification, data transparency and algorithmic accountability are becoming part of the same regulatory conversation.

For retailers and brands, the Temu EU fine may also reshape competition. European sellers have long argued that they face stricter regulatory and product-safety requirements than some low-cost cross-border platforms. Stronger enforcement could create a more balanced market if all platforms are required to meet the same safety and compliance standards.

At the same time, the decision may push marketplaces to invest more heavily in product screening, seller onboarding, AI-based risk detection, supply chain documentation and local compliance teams. These investments could raise operating costs, but they may also become essential for long-term trust.

The Temu EU fine is therefore more than a penalty against one company. It is a signal that ecommerce regulation is entering a tougher phase. In Europe, marketplace growth will increasingly depend not only on price, traffic and conversion, but also on safety, transparency and regulatory discipline.

The decision also signals that global ecommerce platforms must strengthen product safety, seller verification and compliance systems to maintain consumer trust in Europe’s increasingly regulated digital retail market.

EU Regulators Challenge JD.com’s $2.5B Economy Acquisition

EU Regulators Challenge JD.com's $2.5B Economy Acquisition

The European Union has launched a formal review into whether JD.com’s planned $2.5 billion acquisition of German retailer Ceconomy involves unfair state subsidies from China.

The investigation, led by the European Commission, is being conducted under the EU’s Foreign Subsidies Regulation (FSR) – a relatively new framework designed to prevent non-EU government support from distorting competition within the bloc.

Deadline set for initial findings

Regulators have set a May 28, 2026 deadline for the preliminary assessment. If concerns persist, the Commission may escalate the case into a full-scale investigation, potentially requiring JD.com to make concessions to proceed with the deal.

Interestingly, the acquisition does not fall under standard EU merger control rules, but is instead being scrutinized purely on subsidy-related concerns, highlighting the growing importance of the FSR in cross-border deals.

Strategic expansion into Europe

If approved, the deal would significantly strengthen JD.com’s international presence by giving it control over Ceconomy’s well-known retail brands, including MediaMarkt and Saturn, which operate across Europe.

This move is part of JD.com’s broader global expansion strategy as Chinese e-commerce giants increasingly look beyond domestic markets for growth.

Mixed regulatory response across Europe

While the EU review is ongoing, the deal has already triggered different reactions at the national level:

  • Italy has approved the transaction with conditions
  • Austria has raised concerns and continues its own scrutiny
  • Other EU countries are monitoring the situation closely

These parallel reviews underline the growing sensitivity around foreign investments in strategic retail and technology sectors.

Why this matters for e-commerce

This case is a strong signal that Europe is tightening oversight on global e-commerce players, especially those backed by state-linked financing. The outcome could:

  • Set a precedent for future Chinese acquisitions in Europe
  • Impact how global e-commerce firms structure cross-border deals
  • Accelerate regulatory fragmentation across EU markets

As the bloc balances openness to investment with competitive fairness, deals like JD.com-Ceconomy are becoming key test cases for the future of international commerce.

Source

Europe’s Ecommerce Faces Sharp Divide as Netherlands Slips 1% While Sweden Surges 10% in 2025

Europe’s Ecommerce Faces Sharp Divide as Netherlands Slips 1% While Sweden Surges 10% in 2025

Europe’s e-commerce story in 2025 is not one of uniform growth, but of divergence.

Two of the continent’s most advanced digital markets, the Netherlands and Sweden, moved in opposite directions, revealing a deeper shift in how e-commerce is evolving across mature economies. While Dutch e-commerce recorded a 1% decline, Sweden surged ahead with 10% growth, underscoring a widening gap between stabilization and expansion phases in Europe’s digital commerce landscape.

A Subtle Slowdown in the Netherlands

At first glance, a 1% drop in e-commerce spending in the Netherlands, totaling around €35.7 billion ,may appear like a warning sign. In reality, it tells a more nuanced story.

This is a market that has already reached high penetration levels. Growth is no longer driven by volume, but by structural shifts within consumer behavior.

Transaction volumes remained stable, and even more tellingly, online product sales continued to grow. Categories such as home & living, electronics, and toys maintained upward momentum. What dragged overall performance down was not demand, but a decline in service-related spending, a segment that had previously inflated e-commerce figures.

At the same time, Dutch consumers are increasingly looking outward. Cross-border e-commerce expanded rapidly, with spending reaching €4.5 billion. This signals a clear transition: domestic platforms are facing stronger competition as consumers turn to global marketplaces for price, variety, and convenience.

In essence, the Netherlands is not shrinking, it is rebalancing.

Sweden’s Return to Strong Growth

While the Netherlands adjusts to maturity, Sweden is moving with renewed energy.

E-commerce in Sweden grew by 10% in 2025, reaching approximately €14 billion, marking one of its strongest performances in recent years. Unlike the Dutch case, this growth is not selective, it is broad and consistent across sectors.

Health and pharmacy products saw particularly strong demand, alongside home furnishings ,both categories benefiting from long-term lifestyle shifts. Electronics, already a dominant segment, continued to deepen its online penetration, with more than half of purchases now happening digitally.

E-commerce’s share of total retail also edged higher, reaching 15%, reinforcing its role as a central pillar of Sweden’s retail economy rather than a complementary channel.

Sweden’s performance reflects more than recovery – it signals continued expansion in a still-developing digital retail environment.

Two Markets, Two Realities

Placed side by side, these markets highlight a critical truth: Europe’s e-commerce ecosystem is no longer moving in sync.

  • The Netherlands represents a post-growth market, where optimization, competition, and cross-border pressure define the next phase
  • Sweden reflects a growth-driven market, where penetration is still increasing and demand continues to expand

This divergence is not a contradiction – it is a natural evolution of e-commerce maturity.

The Strategic Shift Ahead

For e-commerce players operating in Europe, this split has clear implications.

Growth strategies that worked across the region five years ago are no longer universally effective.

  • In mature markets like the Netherlands, success will depend on differentiation, pricing strategy, and cross-border positioning
  • In growth markets like Sweden, the focus remains on scaling, category expansion, and customer acquisition

The era of “one Europe, one strategy” is over.

A Fragmented but Promising Future

Europe’s e-commerce future is not slowing down – it is becoming more complex.

Some markets are stabilizing, refining their structures and redefining growth drivers. Others are still accelerating, offering strong opportunities for expansion.

Understanding this two-speed dynamic will be essential for brands, marketplaces, and investors navigating the next phase of global e-commerce.

Because in 2025, the real story is not whether e-commerce is growing, but where, how, and why.

Source:

Ecommerce News Europe

EU Delegation Visited Beijing Over the E-Commerce Product Safety Crisis

EU

Trade tensions between the European Union (EU) and China have once again come to the forefront, this time over product safety issues stemming from e-commerce. A delegation from the European Parliament traveled to Beijing as part of a rare visit and held direct talks with Chinese officials. The focus of the meetings was on “unsafe and non-standard products” entering the European market.

E-Commerce Products Are on the EU’s Radar

European Union officials emphasize that a large portion of products entering Europe, especially through low-cost e-commerce platforms, do not meet safety and quality standards. In recent inspections, it has been stated that the rate of non-compliant products in some categories has reached as high as 80%. This situation creates serious risks not only for consumer safety but also for fair competition.

The European Union side is demanding that Chinese manufacturers and platforms comply more strictly with European Union regulations. The increase in non-standard products is drawing particular attention in high-volume categories such as toys, electronics, and textiles.

Debates Around Temu and Shein Are Deepening

Platforms such as Temu and Shein, which have frequently come to the agenda in the European Union recently, are at the center of this debate. The European Commission had previously announced that it would tighten inspections targeting these platforms. In the new period, platforms are planned to be held responsible as “importers” and made directly liable for product safety.

The Beijing Visit Is Rare but Critical

The Beijing visit by the European Parliament delegation is also being considered an important development in terms of diplomatic contacts that have declined in recent years. The meetings addressed not only product safety, but also supply chain transparency and sustainability issues. It is stated that the Chinese side is open to greater cooperation, especially to avoid disruptions to exports, but is taking a cautious approach on the grounds that regulations could slow trade.

Stricter Inspections and Higher Costs in the New Period

Analysts state that these steps by the European Union could make it more difficult in the short term for Chinese-origin products to enter the European market. This means higher costs, especially for e-commerce models based on low-cost advantage. On the other hand, the European Union’s goal is not only to increase product safety; it is also to protect local producers and restore the balance of competition. Recent developments reveal that global e-commerce is now being shaped not only by competition in price and speed, but also by regulation and safety criteria. Tensions between Europe and China in this area are expected to increase even further in the coming period.

WTO E-Commerce Moratorium Deadlock: Who Will Control Digital Trade Rules?

The recent deadlock at the World Trade Organization (WTO) over e-commerce duties may sound technical. It is not. What we are witnessing is a fundamental disagreement about the rules of the digital economy and, more importantly, about who gets to capture its value.

At the center of the debate is the WTO’s long-standing e-commerce moratorium, a rule that prevents countries from imposing customs duties on electronic transmissions such as software, streaming, and cloud services. After nearly 30 years in place, this rule is now under serious scrutiny.

What Is the WTO E-Commerce Moratorium?

The WTO e-commerce moratorium, first introduced in 1998, ensures that digital products and services can cross borders without tariffs.

This includes:

  • Software downloads
  • SaaS platforms (e.g. Microsoft 365)
  • Streaming services (e.g. Netflix)
  • Digital media and cloud-based tools

However, the rule does not apply to physical goods.

If you buy a piece of furniture from abroad, it is subject to tax. If you download software from abroad, it is not. This is the core issue. A container of chairs crossing a border is taxed, while a million-dollar SaaS subscription crossing digitally is not taxed

From a policy standpoint, this asymmetry is becoming harder to justify, especially for emerging economies.

Why Brazil, Türkiye, India and Others Said “No” to the WTO E-Commerce Deal

The WTO talks collapsed after Brazil, supported by countries such as Türkiye and aligned with India’s broader stance, refused to agree to a long-term extension of the moratorium.

Their argument is actually quite rational:

  • The digital economy is still evolving
  • Governments should not give up taxation rights too early
  • Digital imports are growing rapidly, but remain untaxed

In simple terms: “Why should we permanently give up the right to tax the fastest-growing part of the global economy?”

This is not protectionism. It is strategic hesitation.

Why the U.S. and EU Support Extending the Moratorium

The United States and European Union strongly advocate for extending the WTO e-commerce moratorium, preferably on a long-term or permanent basis.

Their motivations are clear:

  • They dominate global digital service exports
  • Their companies rely on frictionless cross-border data flows
  • Tariffs on digital services would increase costs and reduce scalability

For these economies, maintaining a duty-free digital environment is essential for sustaining global competitiveness. For them, this rule is not just convenient, but also structural. Without it, global scaling slows down, SaaS becomes more expensive, and platforms face fragmented regulations.

The Real Conflict: Digital Trade vs Traditional Trade

The WTO deadlock reflects a deeper structural issue in global trade:

Traditional TradeDigital Trade
Physical goodsIntangible services
Subject to tariffsCurrently duty-free
Border-based taxationBorderless delivery

Emerging economies argue that this imbalance creates an unequal playing field. If physical goods are taxed, why should digital goods remain exempt?

This is often framed as a “developed vs developing” conflict. That is only partially true. The deeper divide is this:

  • Digital exporters want open, duty-free flows
  • Digital importers want the right to regulate and tax

This is a clash between two economic realities, one built on platforms and data, and the other still balancing industry, revenue, and transition.

Why This Matters for E-Commerce

For the global e-commerce ecosystem, the implications are significant.

If the moratorium is not extended:

  • Countries may introduce digital import duties
  • Cross-border SaaS and platform costs could increase
  • E-commerce operations could become fragmented by regulation

This would directly impact:

  • Online marketplaces
  • Subscription-based business models
  • Cross-border digital service providers

For regions like the UAE, which position themselves as global e-commerce hubs, maintaining predictable digital trade rules is critical; this could introduce friction into what has so far been a relatively seamless system.

What Happens Next in WTO Negotiations?

Following the deadlock, WTO members will continue discussions in Geneva. The most likely outcome is a short-term extension (2 years), rather than a long-term agreement. However, this does not resolve the underlying issue. The central question remains: Should digital trade be treated the same as physical trade?

From where I stand, working at the intersection of e-commerce, platforms, and global trade, this debate is inevitable. And frankly, overdue. For years, the digital economy has operated in a kind of regulatory grey zone: Borderless, Frictionless, largely untaxed at the transmission level. That model helped accelerate growth. But it also created an imbalance.

The question now is not whether rules will change. They will. The real question is, will those rules enable growth—or fragment it?

The WTO deadlock is often described as a failure. I see it differently. The WTO e-commerce moratorium deadlock is not a temporary disruption. It is a reflection of a broader transformation in the global economy.

We are moving from trade in goods to trade in data and from physical borders to digital jurisdictions

The outcome of this debate will shape:

  • The cost of digital services
  • The scalability of e-commerce platforms
  • The structure of global trade itself

The real question is no longer whether digital trade rules will change. It is, how and in whose favour they will be rewritten.

Bibliography

The Japan Times – “WTO talks end in deadlock after Brazil blocks deal over e-commerce duties” (2026) https://www.japantimes.co.jp/business/2026/03/30/tech/wto-talks-brazil-e-commerce-duties/

World Trade Organization – Work Programme on Electronic Commerce and Moratorium on Customs Duties
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/ecom_work_programme_e.htm

U.S. Trade Representative – Position on WTO E-commerce Moratorium
https://ustr.gov/about/policy-offices/press-office/press-releases/2026/march/ustr-issues-report-wto-reform-eve-ministerial-conference

European Commission – EU Digital Trade and WTO Reform Position Papers
https://www.eeas.europa.eu/delegations/world-trade-organization-wto/eu-submission-wto-reform_en?s=69

WTO – Growing Trade in Electronic Transmissions and Development Implications
https://www.wto.org/english/tratop_e/ecom_e/wkmoratorium29419_e/rashmi_banga.pdf