Targeting exploitative practices—or protectionism against China?
On Tuesday, 10 June, the French Senate approved a law to regulate ultra-fast fashion, with provisions that could ban advertising by Chinese e-commerce giants like Shein and Temu. The move amplifies France’s push to rein in the textile industry’s environmental toll—but raises questions about whom the law truly serves.
Last year, France’s National Assembly (the lower house) passed a bill to mitigate the textile sector’s ecological damage. Now, the Senate has voted nearly unanimously for a modified version, drawing a sharp line between fast fashion and ultra-fast fashion. The latter—dominated by Shein’s 7,200 daily new designs and Temu’s $5 dresses—faces stricter rules, while European brands like Zara and Kiabi escape the heaviest burdens.
The environmental stakes are undeniable. Ultra-fast fashion’s rock-bottom prices come at a cost: 35 garments are discarded every second in France, and the average person buys 48 items a year, according to the state agency Ademe. The law imposes penalties of up to €10 per item (or 50% of the pre-tax price) by 2030 for non-compliance with sustainability criteria.
But the political subtext is harder to ignore. French retailers like Jennyfer (liquidated in April) and NafNaf (in receivership since May) have long blamed Chinese competitors for their decline. By tailoring restrictions to platforms like Shein, the Senate risks framing this as a trade war—not a principled stand against exploitation.
Before implementation, the law must clear procedural hurdles: EU notification and reconciliation between parliamentary versions. Yet its asymmetry is already glaring. The bill attacks the symptom (ultra-fast fashion’s waste) while sidestepping the disease (an industry-wide race to the bottom on labour and ecology).
Final thoughts
The fast and ultra-fast fashion market is undeniably expanding—but so too are its consequences. These aren’t just environmental disasters; they’re social ones, built on exploited labour and disposable consumption. If the solution exempts European players clinging to the same model, is this really about ethics—or just economic self-interest?
The unanimous French Senate vote may suggest consensus, but it doesn’t resolve the contradiction. A truly ethical stance would challenge the exploitative model itself—whether the label reads “Made in China” or “Made in Europe.”
So, let’s return to the central question: Is this law a stand against fast fashion’s abuses—or merely a stand against China? The answer, much like the industry it targets, may not be as sustainable as it seems.