What legal actions and regulatory investigations into Temu and Pinduoduo are currently pending in the U.S.?
Executive summary
Temu and its parent PDD Holdings are facing multiple, overlapping inquiries and legal actions tied to data privacy, forced‑labor allegations, counterfeit goods, tax and trade treatment, and potential national‑security concerns in the United States; those actions range from Congressional probes and state attorney‑general letters and lawsuits to calls for federal agency investigations, plus parallel civil class actions [1] [2] [3]. Reporting indicates a mix of formal lawsuits and investigatory requests is active, but some suggested federal probes remain calls for action rather than publicly announced legal filings [4] [5].
1. Congressional and federal‑level scrutiny: open investigations and requests
U.S. Congress has opened inquiries into Temu’s business practices — including questions about tax treatment, product sourcing and possible links to cotton from Xinjiang — and Congressional committees have publicly reported findings about forced‑labor risks tied to the platform [1] [2]. In addition, Republican Senator Tom Cotton has publicly urged the U.S. Departments of Justice and Homeland Security to investigate Temu (and Shein) for alleged widespread intellectual‑property theft and counterfeiting, a request framed as a push for formal federal criminal and civil enforcement [4].
2. State attorneys‑general actions and information demands
A coalition of state attorneys general has pressed Temu for answers on data practices, ties to the Chinese Communist Party, and compliance with the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act; Florida’s Attorney General Ashley Moody led a demand for information and flagged potential UFLPA violations based on congressional reporting [2]. Individual states have also filed suits in prior years alleging deceptive practices and malware concerns from Temu — for example, Arkansas and Nebraska actions are reported historically, and Arizona sued Temu in December 2025 over consumer data theft and counterfeit sales according to contemporaneous reporting [6] [3].
3. Federal agencies: FTC, DHS, DOJ and other possible probes
Analysts and policy centers have urged the Federal Trade Commission to investigate Temu for deceptive practices, privacy violations and forced‑labor links; while this is a policy recommendation, it reflects ongoing calls and rationale for an FTC probe rather than a single confirmed public enforcement action in the press excerpts provided [5] [3]. Senatorial requests to DOJ and DHS make clear there is political momentum for criminal or national‑security‑oriented probes, but publicly available reporting here shows requests and advocacy rather than confirmation of active DOJ/DHS criminal investigations [4].
4. Civil litigation and class actions against Temu
Temu is the defendant in multiple civil suits and class actions alleging privacy breaches and deceptive practices; investigative reporting and security researchers have documented past suspensions and malware concerns linked to Pinduoduo and raised similar allegations about Temu, fueling consumer class actions in U.S. courts [3] [7]. These private‑party suits coexist with state AG litigation and raise separate liability risks for the company.
5. Regulatory context, cross‑border pressures and their U.S. effect
U.S. actions sit inside a broader international regulatory squeeze: European raids, Digital Services Act complaints, and changes to U.S. tax policy (notably ending the “de minimis” exemption) have been cited as headwinds that amplify U.S. scrutiny of Temu’s business model and PDD’s cross‑border marketplace strategy [8] [9]. Market reports tie these regulatory events back to investor concern about pending and possible enforcement in the U.S., but the sources stress that some EU actions are separate processes with different legal standards [8].
6. What is not fully documented in the reporting
Public reporting assembled here documents requests, demands, state lawsuits, class actions and political calls for federal probes, but does not uniformly show formal, public DOJ criminal indictments or named, ongoing federal agency enforcement actions in the U.S. in every category alleged — some pressures remain calls for investigation, state civil suits, or overseas regulatory actions rather than confirmed domestic criminal prosecutions [4] [2] [5]. The sources also contain investigative claims (e.g., malware, espionage‑style access) from research firms and policy briefs; those claims have driven scrutiny but require formal agency filings or court records to be characterized as pending government prosecutions [10] [3].