Forced-labour rules: what must fashion brands prove under UFLPA and the EU ban?

KEY TAKEAWAYS Summary by the editors

1. Since 21 June 2022 the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act presumes that goods made wholly or in part in Xinjiang, or by listed entities, are made with forced labour and barred from import.
2. To overcome the UFLPA presumption, importers must show by clear and convincing evidence that goods were not made with forced labour and respond fully to CBP information requests.
3. The EU Forced Labour Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 entered into force on 14 December 2024 and applies from 14 December 2027 to any product, sector and operator, regardless of size.
4. Under the EU regulation, authorities open investigations on a substantiated concern, operators get 30 to 60 business days to provide information, and banned products must be withdrawn.
5. Both regimes reward the same capability: supply chain mapping down to raw material, linked to transaction documents for each shipment.

Under the US Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), importers of goods with any link to Xinjiang must prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that no forced labour was involved, otherwise the goods are refused entry. Under the EU Forced Labour Regulation, which applies from 14 December 2027, authorities must show a substantiated concern before investigating, but companies then need to provide supply chain information quickly. In both cases, brands need traceable evidence per product, not policy statements.

What does the UFLPA require from fashion importers?

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) states that since 21 June 2022 it enforces a rebuttable presumption that goods mined, produced or manufactured wholly or in part in the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region, or by an entity on the UFLPA Entity List, are prohibited from entry. Cotton is the obvious exposure for apparel, but the presumption covers any input, including yarn, fabric and trims.

To obtain an exception, an importer must show, by clear and convincing evidence, that the goods were not made wholly or in part by forced labour, and must respond completely and substantively to CBP requests for information. CBP refers to due diligence, effective supply chain tracing and supply chain management measures, and publishes example documentation in an attachment to its notices of detention. CBP also maintains a public UFLPA dashboard with statistics on reviewed shipments.

What does the EU Forced Labour Regulation require?

The EU regulation, (EU) 2024/3015, entered into force on 14 December 2024 and applies from 14 December 2027. According to Linklaters, it covers any product made in whole or in part with forced labour, at any production stage, placed on or exported from the EU market, by EU and non-EU operators of any size. It does not create a stand-alone due diligence duty, but operators are expected to identify and address forced-labour risks.

• Trigger: national authorities, or the Commission for risks outside the EU, follow a risk-based approach and open a formal investigation only on a substantiated concern.
• Information requests: during investigations, operators get between 30 and 60 business days, extendable, to provide information.
• Consequences: if a violation is found, products must be withdrawn and banned from the market, and must be disposed of, for example by destruction or rendering them inoperable.
• Support tools: the Commission runs a Single Portal on Forced Labour, is building a database of forced-labour risks in specific areas and products, and published guidelines on 30 June 2026, in final form in the Official Journal on 3 September 2026.

Read also

AI for sourcing and supply chain managers in fashion

How do UFLPA and the EU ban compare?

What evidence do brands actually need?

Both regimes reward the same capability: the ability to show, per shipment or product, where each input came from. Typical evidence includes:

1. A supply chain map per product, from garment factory to fabric mill, spinner and raw material source, with facility names and addresses.
2. Purchase orders, invoices, packing lists and transport documents linking each tier to the next.
3. Production records showing that the specific inputs went into the specific goods.
4. Supplier declarations and audit results, with dates and scope.
5. Where risk is high, physical testing of the material, for example isotopic origin testing for cotton.

Physical tests are a complement, not a substitute. Just Style reported in 2023 that CBP isotopic testing found ten of 37 sampled garments consistent with Xinjiang-origin cotton, and that CBP said isotopic testing alone is not enough to clear detained shipments. According to Oritain, CBP has set up a dedicated isotopic testing lab in Savannah, Georgia.

How do EDI and transaction data help with forced-labour evidence?

The rules also overlap with other EU obligations. The same supplier maps and documents support due diligence reporting, green claims about materials and, once the textile delegated act applies, Digital Product Passport data on origin. Building one evidence base, rather than separate files for customs, sustainability and product teams, reduces cost and the risk of contradictory answers to different authorities.

Much of the required evidence already exists in transaction systems: purchase orders, advance shipping notices, invoices and certificates of origin. The problem is that upstream tiers often exchange these by email and PDF. Brands that require structured data from tier 1 suppliers, including references to the fabric and yarn orders behind each garment order, can assemble a shipment file in hours instead of weeks. Shared facility identifiers and consistent product codes make that linking possible.

Read also

How can AI monitor supplier risk and compliance in fashion?

Where can AI help, and where are the limits?

AI can screen supplier names and addresses against restricted entity lists, extract data from scanned shipping and origin documents, flag inconsistencies such as volumes that do not match capacity, and prioritise shipments for testing. These uses speed up due diligence and response to authorities.

AI cannot certify that goods are free of forced labour. Name matching produces false positives and misses aliases, and models cannot see into undocumented tiers. The OECD Due Diligence Guidance for the garment and footwear sector, published in 2018, recommends a risk-based approach that focuses effort where risk is most severe; AI is a tool within that process, not a replacement for it.

Frequently asked questions

What is the UFLPA rebuttable presumption?

Since 21 June 2022, CBP presumes that goods made wholly or in part in Xinjiang, or by entities on the UFLPA Entity List, are made with forced labour and cannot enter the US. Importers can rebut it only with clear and convincing evidence and full responses to CBP information requests.

When does the EU forced labour ban apply?

Regulation (EU) 2024/3015 entered into force on 14 December 2024 and applies from 14 December 2027. It covers all products, sectors and company sizes, including goods made outside the EU and goods exported from it.

Does the EU forced labour regulation require due diligence?

It does not impose a stand-alone due diligence obligation, but authorities consider risk factors and the information operators provide. In practice, companies need mapped supply chains and documentation to answer information requests within 30 to 60 business days.

Is isotope testing enough to prove cotton origin under UFLPA?

No. CBP has said isotopic testing alone is not enough to clear detained shipments. It is useful as a screening and supporting tool, combined with supply chain maps and transaction documents.

GuideThe complete guide to AI in the fashion supply chain and sustainabilityRead the complete guide