Describing the flood of unsafe products into the EU as a “tsunami”, Green MEP Saskia Bricmont said further action was needed to protect consumers and prevent counterfeiting. She added that it was important for the EU to propose “alternative and affordable consumption models” based on the use of local and second-hand products and a circular economy.
[…]
“Non-EU platforms have avoided paying any environmental fees and have undermined efforts to move towards a circular economy,” [Maria Guzenina (S&D)] said.
[…]
MEP Leila Chaibi (The Left) also wants the Commission to strengthen rules on digital fairness.
According to her, Amazon, Temu and Shein should be “banned from the EU” as long as they fail to comply with EU laws on conformity standards, as well as social and environmental norms.
[…]
The Commission unveiled its e-commerce strategy in February, which focuses on better cooperation between the EU and national authorities. On the same day, it announced new actions against Shein under its consumer protection rules and emphasised that e-commerce companies such as Amazon, Temu and Shein face ongoing investigations under the EU’s Digital Services Act (DSA).
However, the Commission said it would wait a year before evaluating its e-commerce strategy.
So just actually enforce EU law and ban companies that do not comply? Sounds reasonable enough. “Banned from the EU” sound like they want to target specific companies but thats not really the case if you actually just enforce your laws
In Switzerland, Amazon has (for most physical products) hardly been competitive since 2018 due to a VAT regulation, which is intended to protect the Swiss domestic economy against the size-related superiority and, above all, against the tax tricks of this juggernaut. Nevertheless, the world has not come to an end there - quite the opposite. There is actually some competition again in their e-commerce-market.
No shit. That’s because Amazon chokes all competition. Downsizing them gives competition a chance to come back alive.
Exactly, no shit.
It’s quite nice not having to deal with amazon.
I think part of the problem is that people believe they are being overcharged for stuff and that they are simply getting the “real “ or “fair “ price from these other sellers.
As an addition to Shein which aims at IPO at the London Stock exchange (article from 20 March 2025):
Why Shein’s Prices Are So Cheap, And Why You Shouldn’t Fall For It
[The fast fast turnaround time of new product at Shein] comes at the expense of poor working conditions. A 2022 documentary by the UK’s Channel 4 called “Inside the Shein Machine: UNTOLD” details horrific working conditions, with factory workers subjected to 18-hour work days and only one day off per month. In addition, it alleged that workers were paid approximately $550 per month to make at least 500 pieces of clothing per day. By cutting labor costs, SHEIN is able to price its products more competitively than other fashion brands that comply with labor regulations […]
[Investigations within another SHEIN supply chain company revealed that people] are working 12-hour days for typically seven days per week — similar conditions to the ones reported in the UK documentary in 2022. Despite the additional years of supposed efforts to improve conditions within SHEIN’s supply chain, workers at some suppliers indicated that not much had changed […]
The environmental impact of fast fashion is well documented, with mountains of discarded clothes ending up in landfills. SHEIN’s cheap prices and $7.99 shipping fee for returns result in many buyers not bothering to return ill-fitting or poor-quality pieces. As a result, many of these clothes are discarded, destined for landfills. While you might end up with some good pieces, getting badly stitched or poor-quality items from SHEIN is not uncommon. Even if you get a piece of clothing that fits well, it might not last more than a few washes.
It’s disappointing and very stupid that so many people just love buying toxic crap they don’t need, produced by people who are effectively slaves.
That said, the left loves to pretend we are headed towards a “circular economy” and that stuff like Temu is holding that back. While this is a beautiful thought, the notion that people who are OK with Temu will embrace an alternative model of repairs and small second-hand family-owned local shops is just a fantasy.
Yeah. The trend of making “haul” videos leaves me crestfallen every time I see one.
Retail Therapy, we’ve all been programmed to find pleasure in consumption.
That said, the left loves to pretend we are headed towards a “circular economy”
Unfortunately, we’re not doing great on the path to a circular economy. The issue is that if we want to continue life on Earth as we know it, it’s an imperative that we not kill nature entirely, so we’d probably be advised to massively reduce the speed with which we dig new materials and the speed with which we landfill or burn said materials.
I’d love to see Temu banned from the US too. Everything I’ve ever heard about their shit boils down to “hot garbage on a good day.”
I am aware that Amazon and other e-commerce giants have produced damages to our economies and that those huge profits do not drip down to the local communities but I do not agree that now we should hope for them to just disappear.
E-commerce won’t go away cause it is part of the technological progress and no one will stop using them on moral or ethical basis. They are here to stay and the sooner we accept it the sooner we can understand that these realities have to be at least reformed or forced to comply to regulations.
Hoping for people and economies to just radically change is in my opinion just delusional.
Asked Le Mistral on some ideas and I think they could be a starting point for a more productive discussion on this topic. Amazon and other big e-commerce corporations hinder progress on circular economy and on sustainable local commerce. How could these realities be reformed so to better help with these issues?
My friend, maybe you didn’t read the article well. Enforcing regulatioand collecting the due taxes are exactly what they are proposing
I read it but my reply was aimed at the general discussion vibe here, where many where expressing stronger opinions on the matter
Who hoped they would just dissappear?
EU has forced abusive international companies to change plenty of times. I see no reason why this would be any different.
“You can only buy chinese products through our companies”
?
Based af
Banning amazon would do so much good
Right? All the little “misc/everything” stores disappeared.
Now if I want something isn’t 100% normie/mainstream, then I can’t find it in store anywhere.
I couldn’t even find thermal paste for a PC build in store anywhere.
Yeah i dont need 24h shipping, i want 20 minute pick up from the store.
And pay triple of what I’d pay online. Living the dream
At the same quality level its not gonna be anywhere near triple. In my experience its maybe like 20-30% increase, but idk how it is in other countries i guess. In the US amazon has obviously destroyed all the competition because people there just love sucking on Bezos teat so the price comparison is nonsensical.
In the UK Amazon used to be much cheaper, but now they have the market I’ve found it only slightly cheaper or on par with low cost options in shops - if you can find what you need.
Triple was hyperbole, for sure, but for these convenience items like thermal paste, charging cables, headphones, extension cords, and such, where people go to local stores because they want it immediately, the upcharge is abhorrent, at least in Germany. For other products it’s not as bad.
Yeah, pay more. To a reputable company, that isn’t a Chinese substitution, counterfeit or replacement product with a made up name. Computer products containing firmware that doesn’t immediately capture your data and send it to a 3rd party without your consent. Extra business in a circular economy like this increases resale value and the uptick in business allows more local options to open, generating competition and lowering prices, whilst increasing the number jobs in logisitics, transport and retail. Or did you not realise that Amazon was the reason that the same set of headphones was €50 more in the store than through them?
Nothing about this makes it a circular economy. The e-trash you buy locally is likely the same you get online and it’s going to end up in the same landfill. The only difference is you paying double or even more because, one, the local store up-charges you for the convenience of getting the product immediately, and two, all the added cost of having physical locations, extra wages, storage, insurance, etc. none of which will magically go down with “increased competition”. They already are under heavy pressure from online stores, that’s why so many physical stores closed down in the last two decades in the first place, if they could lower prices without going out of business, they’d have done it already.
No, it does step towards a circular European Economy. If you actually read into the proposed legislature instead of just assuming what it says based on the headline you would see that. Point two the added requirements of staff and logistics = things are more exponentially more expensive is a false dichotomy perpetuated by American corporate interest in order to demoralise and discourage competition, thus increasing their market share and their stranglehold on retail as a whole. Point three, you emphasise that the store upcharges you for convenience and then change the argument to be in order to pay people a fair wage. A wage which amazon does not. Notice how you subconsciously demonise the intention of the local retailer? Even though amazon is literally the reason for the accelerated global warming. I would argue the increase in price is directly caused by the decrease in traffic created by amazon and global online retail as a whole. I would further add to the point that reputable companies line Sony, or Bosch. Still charge as much, if not more to sell through amazon. Many producers of high quality electronics just do not use amazon anymore, because their return policy has always been detrimental to producers of quality goods, immediately taking the proceeds of the sale from the store with no evidence to support the customer claims and making it prohibitively costly to do business on the platform and make products that are not complete garbage.
Counterargument, removing the “cheap alternative” will 1) Drive additional traffic to stores, allowing people to shop locally again and re level the playing field in terms of competitive pricing. 2) Allow more retail businesses to open up and meet newly available niche requirements created by the absence of these retailers. 3) Create a whole new argument for the increase of income to a liveable minimum wage, benefiting literally everybody but the 1% We have been conditioned go think that things are the way they are and they can’t change. It is complete nonsense, it is a lie perpetuate by the middle class, who are owned by our corporate masters. We do not need these, we do not need their products and we can all achieve an improved level of personal wealth through the removal of them and their monopolistic hoarding of capital through tax evasion and political corruption. Google’s parent company Alphabet, valued at over a trillion Dollars, Amazon valued at 2.4 trillion, Apple at 3.6 Trillion. 2781 inidividauls with a combined networth of over 3.6 trillion dollars between them. The entire global gdp is 13.6 Trillion dollars. Norway’s entire store of wealth, largest in Europe, sits at 1.6 Trillion euro. With all due respect my friend, stop looking at this so myopically as to look at your comfort in existing as another person’s slave and wake up to where all the wealth has gone. We have all been lied to.
No, it does step towards a circular European Economy. If you actually read into the proposed legislature instead of just assuming what it says based on the headline you would see that.
There is no reason for local stores to be more capable of this than online stores.
Point two the added requirements of staff and logistics = things are more exponentially more expensive is a false dichotomy perpetuated by American corporate interest in order to demoralise and discourage competition, thus increasing their market share and their stranglehold on retail as a whole.
Nobody talks about “exponential”, but the simple reality is that it’s more expensive due to more staff, more redundancy, more overhead, all of it costs money, there’s no way around it.
Point three, you emphasise that the store upcharges you for convenience and then change the argument to be in order to pay people a fair wage.
I never mentioned fair wages, what are you talking about? Local stores have to pay more people for the same volume, massive centralized warehouses are just more efficient.
Notice how you subconsciously demonise the intention of the local retailer?
I do no such thing, your comment is the one dripping with moralizing. I have no problem with local retailers, for a lot of products they are great, especially for the kind that are bigger purchases where people consider them longer or when you might want personal consultation. I have a local whisky store that’s absolutely great, great service, great recommendations, they let you taste the product before you buy, you pay like 30% - 40% more, but it’s worth it. What I was specifically reffering to were impulse purchases like the thermal paste like the above commenter mentioned, or headphones, charging cables, extension cords and such, where people go to local stores because they want it immediately. You’re upcharged like hell on those things, often double the price or even more than for the same product online, borderline rip-offs.
Even though amazon is literally the reason for the accelerated global warming. I would argue the increase in price is directly caused by the decrease in traffic created by amazon and global online retail as a whole.
Well, you’d be wrong. How do you think product arrives at a local store, do you think it’s by brought by a stork? Then in addition to that, people drive into town with their inefficient cars, how in the world is that better for the environment than to have it get delivered straight to your home?
Counterargument, removing the “cheap alternative” will 1) Drive additional traffic to stores, allowing people to shop locally again and re level the playing field in terms of competitive pricing.
There already is heavy competition, how do you not get this? There’s no magic competition barrier between online and local. That’s why so many local stores folded, they were outcompeted. There is no reason to believe local prices would drop if online disappeared, if anything, they would increase because they have inherently, due to geography, less competition.
- Allow more retail businesses to open up and meet newly available niche requirements created by the absence of these retailers.
I don’t see how that is an inherent good. Just more moralizing.
- Create a whole new argument for the increase of income to a liveable minimum wage, benefiting literally everybody but the 1%
What’s the argument, man? There is no argument for why we can’t force higher wages among warehouse workers and delivery drivers. None.
