- Claim value estimated at £4.2 million
- Shein set to appeal disclosure ruling
The Competition Appeal Tribunal has ordered Shein to disclose the names of hundreds of suppliers who signed so-called “loyalty” or attestation documents, rejecting confidentiality objections and refusing permission to appeal, in a procedural hearing in Temu’s competition damages claim.
The ruling came at a case management conference in Roadget Business Pte Ltd and Shein Distribution UK Ltd v Whaleco Ltd (Temu), part of a wider dispute in which Temu alleges that Shein engaged in anti-competitive conduct designed to restrict suppliers from selling on rival platforms.
The proceedings concern the competition law elements of an IP counterclaim transferred from the High Court to the CAT in July 2025.
Supplier Attestations And Disclosure
Temu sought disclosure of the identities of suppliers who were required by Shein to sign attestation documents in late 2022 and early 2023, which Temu says formed part of a strategy to deter suppliers from selling on its platform.
Shein accepted that around 450 suppliers signed the attestations during a two-month period, but resisted disclosure of their identities, arguing that the information was highly commercially sensitive and that Temu had not articulated a clear plan for how the data would be used.
Temu told the Tribunal that without knowing which suppliers had signed the attestations, it could not analyse the effects of the conduct on supplier behaviour, product listings or sales volumes, nor prepare expert economic evidence for trial.
The Tribunal accepted Temu’s position, concluding that the names were necessary for Temu to investigate effects, and that concerns about proportionality or sampling could be addressed through case management if problems arose later.
Confidentiality And Appeal Refused
Shein argued that, if disclosure were ordered at all, the information should be limited to the most restrictive confidentiality tier and warned of serious commercial harm if supplier identities were shared.
The Tribunal rejected those submissions and ordered that the names be disclosed within seven days under the applicable confidentiality ring.
Shein indicated an intention to appeal the confidentiality ruling, but the Tribunal refused permission to appeal, holding that the decision was a case management ruling and that no serious issue warranting appellate intervention had been identified.
To prevent delay, the Tribunal shortened the timetable for any appeal application and emphasised that disclosure should proceed in the meantime.
Existing Supplier Names Remain Confidential
In a separate application, Temu sought to remove confidentiality protections from the identities of 22 suppliers who had previously been interviewed by Shein and whose names were already disclosed within the proceedings.
The Tribunal refused that application, finding that the interview materials contained commercially sensitive information about suppliers’ businesses and that confidentiality remained justified.
However, the Tribunal confirmed that confidentiality restrictions did not prevent lawyers within the confidentiality ring from contacting suppliers to discuss their own interviews.
Quantum And “Retained Interest” Claim
The hearing also addressed Shein’s application for further information about a newly amended head of loss pleaded by Temu, described as “retained interest”.
Shein argued that the amendment raised fundamental questions about whether Temu had suffered any recoverable loss at all, and sought clarification on the mechanism and ownership of the alleged interest.
The Tribunal ordered Temu to clarify in formal RFI responses that:
- the “retained interest” element does not add to the overall quantum of its loss claim; and
- the claim forms part of the same service-fee loss mechanism already pleaded.
However, the Tribunal declined to order Temu to provide further detail about contractual arrangements or ownership of interest at this stage, finding that those issues went beyond what was necessary for the liability phase of the proceedings.
Next Steps
The Tribunal also approved modest adjustments to the procedural timetable, with disclosure and expert evidence deadlines pushed into January 2026, and indicated that a further case management conference would be listed later in February.
The case continues toward a liability trial in the CAT, with issues of quantum to be determined at a later stage.
The Tribunal sat as a single-member panel comprising Andrew Lykiardopoulos KC.
Marie Demetriou KC (Brick Court Chambers) appeared for Shein.
Josh Holmes KC (Monckton Chambers) appeared for Whaleco UK Limited (Temu).
The case is 1745/5/7/25 (T) Roadget Business Pte. Ltd. and Shein Distribution UK Limited v Whaleco UK Limited in the CAT.
