July 20, 2026
madvideos.gmail.com/Depositphotos.com
AliExpress Faces $629 Million EU Fine Over Illegal and Counterfeit Product Sales
The European Union has imposed a record €550 million ($629 million) fine on AliExpress, alleging that the marketplace failed to adequately prevent the sale of illegal, unsafe and counterfeit products.
The penalty, the largest issued under the Digital Services Act (DSA) to date, exceeds previous fines levied against Temu and X and could signal a new era of regulatory scrutiny for global e-commerce platforms.
European regulators argue that AliExpress underestimated the risks posed by counterfeit goods, lacked sufficient moderation resources and relied on ineffective systems to identify and remove problematic listings.
The Commission also criticized the platform’s recommendation and advertising engines, claiming they amplified the spread of illegal products, including counterfeit clothing, unsafe toys and potentially harmful cosmetics.
Why the Ruling Carries Implications Well Beyond AliExpress
Europe was home to roughly 193 million AliExpress users last year, more than either Temu or Shein, and regulators have made clear that they intend to hold large digital marketplaces responsible for what third-party sellers offer on their platforms.
AliExpress has until October 20 to present a remediation plan or risk additional penalties.
For retailers, brands and marketplace operators, the case raises larger questions about platform accountability.
As cross-border e-commerce continues to grow, governments are increasingly weighing how much responsibility marketplaces should bear for policing counterfeit goods, protecting consumers and ensuring fair competition.
Some industry observers believe stricter oversight could level the playing field for retailers that invest heavily in compliance and product safety, while others warn that heightened regulation may increase costs and create new barriers for online sellers.
Discussion questions
- Should online marketplaces be held legally responsible for counterfeit and unsafe products sold by third-party merchants?
- Will tougher regulations improve consumer trust in e-commerce, or will they simply make it harder for marketplaces to operate efficiently?
- How should retailers and brands balance marketplace growth with the need for stronger product oversight?
BrainTrust
Nicholas Morine
Neil Saunders
Managing Director, GlobalData
Chase Binnie
CEO, RetailWire
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Should online marketplaces be held legally responsible for counterfeit and unsafe products sold by third-party merchants?
Will tougher regulations improve consumer trust in e-commerce, or will they simply make it harder for marketplaces to operate efficiently?
How should retailers and brands balance marketplace growth with the need for stronger product oversight?
Poll
Loading …
Platforms are not responsible for every single third-party product sold. What they are responsible for, however, is the operational systems that weed out bad actors and ensure legal compliance. Traditionally, some Chinese marketplaces have been weak on these things and have used that to engineer a cost advantage. It is now very clear across a number of Western markets that this isn’t going to fly. This levels the playing field with traditional operators, but it should also create more consumer trust – which is not a bad thing for any marketplace.
And this is part of a wider crackdown that goes hand-in-hand with the EU’s recent scrapping of the de minimis customs exemption. Imported packages now face a €3 charge.
It almost sounds like a systematic effort; kind of a control sample to some wild, half-baked “plan” that fluctuates week-to-week on the whim of a single individual.
I cannot possibly think what you are referring to here!!
Like much else in life, this seems a case of not letting perfect be the enemy of good: no, no retailer – online or off – can prevent all fraud; but that’s a poor excuse for doing nothing (personally I’ve long tired of tech companies that disavow all responsiblity for the problems they help create…all the while pulling in the big bucks) Likewise, we can’t demand online commerce stop, simply because it creates issues.
What’s needed are clear guidelines online retailers can follow…and need to, if they’re to be given a safe-harbor exemption from prosecution.
Something has to be done in the US (as well as the EU) about the the “What. Me Worry?” Alfred E. Neuman/Mad Magazine defense mounted by virtually every modern website (from social media to web stores). Social media tell us they aren’t media—and abuse all kinds of societal norms. Online stores ignore (without market punishment) things no brick and mortar store would be able to ignore. And Uber tells us their drivers are “independent contractors” thought that isn’t very clear.
I am not deeply enough involved with the law to know what can be done to fix this. But skating legal categories in order to abuse customers, clients, and employees is not, and has never been, healthy for society. Unfortunately, it’s a professional level sport among today’s digital billionaires.
As often happens, we need to hope that fines like these from the EU affect company operations worldwide.
The Commission’s charge goes beyond whether AliExpress had adequate moderation systems. It targeted the recommendation and advertising engines for amplifying counterfeit and unsafe listings. That’s the sharper standard: not just inadequate policing, but active algorithmic amplification of harm. As marketplaces layer AI shopping agents onto these same engines, the amplification problem compounds rather than shrinks. An algorithm optimized for engagement surfaces a counterfeit toy with the same enthusiasm as a certified one, unless accountability is built into the ranking logic itself rather than bolted on as an afterthought.
This fine is a preview for every platform building agentic discovery. Whoever controls the recommendation layer owns the liability that comes with it. Design accountability into the ranking logic now, or explain it to a regulator later.
More Discussions
Where’s the Next Disruptor (or Differentiator) for Beverage Alcohol as Soft Sales Persist?
Are things about to get worse for beverage alcohol and associated retailers?What Lessons Can Casey’s Teach C-Store Competitors, and Will the Chain’s Success Story Hold?
In an extensive breakdown of Casey’s success story so far, C-Store Dive senior reporter Brett Dworski…Can Zipline Make Drone Delivery ‘Mainstream’ in the US as it Fills Out its Exec Team?
Do you believe Zipline can delivery on its goal of making drone delivery a mainstream experience…
Platforms are not responsible for every single third-party product sold. What they are responsible for, however, is the operational systems that weed out bad actors and ensure legal compliance. Traditionally, some Chinese marketplaces have been weak on these things and have used that to engineer a cost advantage. It is now very clear across a number of Western markets that this isn’t going to fly. This levels the playing field with traditional operators, but it should also create more consumer trust – which is not a bad thing for any marketplace.
And this is part of a wider crackdown that goes hand-in-hand with the EU’s recent scrapping of the de minimis customs exemption. Imported packages now face a €3 charge.
It almost sounds like a systematic effort; kind of a control sample to some wild, half-baked “plan” that fluctuates week-to-week on the whim of a single individual.
I cannot possibly think what you are referring to here!!
Like much else in life, this seems a case of not letting perfect be the enemy of good: no, no retailer – online or off – can prevent all fraud; but that’s a poor excuse for doing nothing (personally I’ve long tired of tech companies that disavow all responsiblity for the problems they help create…all the while pulling in the big bucks) Likewise, we can’t demand online commerce stop, simply because it creates issues.
What’s needed are clear guidelines online retailers can follow…and need to, if they’re to be given a safe-harbor exemption from prosecution.
Something has to be done in the US (as well as the EU) about the the “What. Me Worry?” Alfred E. Neuman/Mad Magazine defense mounted by virtually every modern website (from social media to web stores). Social media tell us they aren’t media—and abuse all kinds of societal norms. Online stores ignore (without market punishment) things no brick and mortar store would be able to ignore. And Uber tells us their drivers are “independent contractors” thought that isn’t very clear.
I am not deeply enough involved with the law to know what can be done to fix this. But skating legal categories in order to abuse customers, clients, and employees is not, and has never been, healthy for society. Unfortunately, it’s a professional level sport among today’s digital billionaires.
As often happens, we need to hope that fines like these from the EU affect company operations worldwide.
The Commission’s charge goes beyond whether AliExpress had adequate moderation systems. It targeted the recommendation and advertising engines for amplifying counterfeit and unsafe listings. That’s the sharper standard: not just inadequate policing, but active algorithmic amplification of harm. As marketplaces layer AI shopping agents onto these same engines, the amplification problem compounds rather than shrinks. An algorithm optimized for engagement surfaces a counterfeit toy with the same enthusiasm as a certified one, unless accountability is built into the ranking logic itself rather than bolted on as an afterthought.
This fine is a preview for every platform building agentic discovery. Whoever controls the recommendation layer owns the liability that comes with it. Design accountability into the ranking logic now, or explain it to a regulator later.