Anti-Fast Fashion Law: Is Europe finally ready to defend its interests?

This week the French Conciliation Committee (CMP) will meet to adopt a final version of the proposed law to reduce the environmental impact of the textile industry. This is better known as the “anti-fast fashion law”.

Beyond the textile industry, this debate touches on a central question for European economies: the conditions of international competition. How long can Europe be open to actors who are not subject to the same social, environmental, tax or traceability requirements as its own companies? And at what point is the defense of a fair economic framework no longer protectionism but a question of reciprocity?

For several years, the Old Continent has been accused of being the only major economic power with almost unconditional openness. The United States protects its key industries with massive subsidies, regulatory hurdles or openly protectionist measures. China, in turn, bases its development on a declared national preference. Europe is often perceived as the most accessible market in the world.

In the field of artificial intelligence, the American technology giants have prevailed without serious European competition. Amazon has profoundly changed consumer habits in online retail. In industry, numerous sectors have lost competitiveness due to global competition. For a long time, openness was presented as a virtue in itself. Could fashion now become the scene of a change?

A law specifically targeting Shein and Temu

The communication published by the French government leaves little room for doubt. The text is directed against the “excesses of ultra-fast fashion”, which are particularly embodied by the platforms Shein and Temu. They are accused of competing with European companies without being subject to the same social, environmental and tax requirements as local brands.

Three measures structure the proposed law. The first and central measure provides for a levy of up to 50 percent of the sales price for ultra-fast fashion players. The second measure requires the display of messages that raise awareness of reuse, moderate consumption and recycling. The third measure provides for a complete ban on advertising for ultra-fast fashion products.

Rarely has a French law so directly targeted a foreign business model. For the government, this is not just an environmental issue. It is also about restoring fair conditions of competition between companies with high standards and international players who operate according to different rules.

Fashion as a laboratory for a new industrial policy?

Perhaps the most interesting thing lies in what this initiative reveals. Discussions about economic sovereignty have been increasing for several years. Whether energy, health, agriculture, semiconductors or artificial intelligence – the term has become a central element of European politics.

The fashion industry has so far seemed largely unaffected by this development. The French textile industry has experienced a dramatic decline in recent decades. According to the French statistics office Insee, the number of employees in this sector has fallen sharply since the 1980s. Many production locations have been relocated, while global digital platforms are accounting for a growing share of consumption.

Above all, this law reflects a change in public attitudes. For a long time, the authorities accompanied the changes in the textile sector without directly intervening in the conditions of competition. Now they are trying to actively shape the market themselves.

The aim is to maintain an industrial and trade structure that is considered strategically important and at the same time to demand more reciprocity from international players.

Between protection and protectionism

However, the question remains sensitive. Proponents of free trade emphasize that competition benefits consumers, especially in times of declining purchasing power. Platforms like Shein and Temu have built their success on precisely this promise: making fashion accessible at extremely low prices.

Proponents of the law, however, argue that the debate cannot be reduced to a pure question of price. Because today it’s not just the price difference that is criticized. It is also about the lack of transparency of a business model whose supply chains are difficult to understand. The production conditions are largely beyond the control of European consumers. In addition, compliance with social, environmental and trading standards is regularly questioned.

For years, NGOs, consumer associations and European institutions have been warning about the difficulties in controlling certain ultra-fast fashion players. This applies in particular to traceability, product conformity, working conditions and environmental impacts. Several studies have also highlighted the limits of existing control mechanisms in highly fragmented and globalized supply chains.

For supporters of the law, it is less about sealing off the market and more about restoring a minimum level of reciprocity. In other words: The aim is to ensure that players who sell on a large scale in Europe comply with comparable rules as European companies.

“The ridiculous prices of ultra-fast fashion hide very real costs: environmental pollution, waste of resources, unfair competition and the weakening of companies,” said Monique Barbut, Minister for the Ecological Transition.

The debate extends far beyond the textile sector. It raises a fundamental question for Western economies: To what extent is a society willing to accept global competition if the rules of this competition do not apply equally to everyone?

The signal from France

Regardless of the final outcome of the legislative process, the political signal is already clear. France is no longer just trying to regulate the consequences of globalization; the country is beginning to question some of its basic rules. The CMP meeting could therefore become a comparatively small legislative event with great symbolic significance. Not because it alone would change the global textile market, but because it reflects a deeper development: that of a country that is increasingly embracing the view that not all competition is equal.

For a long time, Europe has defined itself as an open economic area. Current developments suggest that Europe now also wants to become an area that protects its industries, trade and know-how when the rules of the game are perceived to be unbalanced.

At its core, it’s about much more than just Shein or Temu. The real question is whether Europe is willing to continue to be the most open market in the world while its competitors play by different rules.