Chinese companies use legal threats to stop foreign research

A little over a year ago, a group of researchers from Sheffield Hallam University in England published a report that documented a Chinese clothing company possible ties with forced labor. The members of the British Parliament cited the report before a November debate that criticized China for “slavery and forced labor of another era. “

But smart shirts, which is a subsidiary of the manufacturer and manufactures clothing for important labels, filed a defamation demand. And in December, a British judge issued a ruling: the case would advance, which could result in the paid damage of the university.

The preliminary finding in the case against the University is the last of a series of legal challenges that the Think Tanks and the universities that investigate the abuses of human rights and security violations by Chinese companies rise. To stop the unfavorable reports, which have led to political debate and, in some cases, export restrictions, companies are shooting with accusations of defamation.

Chinese companies have demanded or sent threatening legal letters to researchers in the United States, Europe and Australia near a dozen times in recent years in an attempt to cancel negative information, and half of those who arrived in the last two years. The unusual tactic borrows from a play book used by corporations and celebrities to discourage the coverage of harmful news in the media.

The incipient legal tactic of Chinese companies could silence critics who shed light on problematic commercial practices within one of the most powerful countries in the world, the researchers warn. Legal action is to have a chilling effect on their work, they say, and in many cases striving the finances of their organizations.

The problem has ruled so, the select committee of the United States Representatives Chamber on the Chinese Communist Party held an audience on the subject In September.

The researchers in these cases “face an option: to remain silent and return to the PCCH pressure campaign or continue to tell the truth and face the tremendous reputation and financial costs of these demands”, representative of the Committee, representative John Moolenaar, A Michigan Republican said at the audience.

He added: “The Chinese Communist Party uses the American legal system to silence those who could expose them in the United States.”

The battle between Chinese companies and critical researchers has intensified as tensions have increased between the United States and China on commerce, technology and territory.

Washington has taken measures to limit China's access to resources as the necessary chips for artificial intelligence, and in recent days the Trump administration imposed a 10 percent rate to all Chinese imports. Beijing countered measures that include limits in the export of rare earth minerals and an antimonopoly investigation in Google.

During the last decade, researchers, who are based mainly on records and photographs and videos available publicly, have documented problematic commercial practices in China. These reports have helped to show how products manufactured for US and European companies benefited from an epidemic for forced by minority Égados Uigures in China. Researchers have also shed light on possible security defects, raising national security concerns, as well as problematic connections between companies and the government.

Now, Chinese corporations are increasingly hiring Western lawyers to combat such reports on accusations of defamation.

One of the first examples occurred in 2019 when Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications giant, threatened to sue the Institute of Strategic Policy of Australia, a group of Australian experts. ASPI had published a report that contains accusations that the servers provided by Huawei to an African nations coalition were sending data to Shanghai.

The Chinese Embassy in 2020 gave the Australian government a list of <a target="_blank" class="css-yywogo" href="https://x.com/jekearsley/status/1328986579629613057″ title=”” rel=”noopener noreferrer” target=”_blank”>14 complaints that wanted to direct to improve relations between countries. Complaints included Australia's financing, something Huawei had pressed to stop after his report. (As of 2024, the Australian government continued financing the organization, according to the last Disseminations.

The Huawei and China embassy did not respond to comments requests.

ASPI remains the objective of the threats of the Chinese company about its research on topics, including the use of forced labor. The legal costs of the group of experts, including personnel in legal matters related to the Chinese, have increased from zero in 2018 to 219,000 Australian dollars, almost 2 percent of their annual budget of 12.5 million dollars.

“They are mountains of legal letters, bothering, saying: 'We are going to sue,” said Danielle Cave, director of Aspi. “It is quite stressful and is designed to distract you.”

More recently, companies have issued threats similar to researchers in the United States and Great Britain.

Eric Sayers, who focuses on the American-China technology policy in the American Enterprise Institute's experts, <a target="_blank" class="css-yywogo" href="https://x.com/dericsayers/status/1706748124054671801?s=61″ title=”” rel=”noopener noreferrer” target=”_blank”>He received a letter In September, of the lawyers who demanded that he withdraw an opinion article that co -wrote about a Chinese drones company, Autel Robotics. The article, which was Posted by Defense NewsA commercial publication said that Chinese manufacturing drones represented a risk of national security because they could map US infrastructure.

The representatives of AUTEL described the article “defamatory and harmful” and threatened to sue if it was not eliminated, although they finally abandoned the matter.

Mr. Sayers published the letter in x as a warning to other researchers. He wrote what the Chinese government is seen “the law within our democracy.”

In May, the Safety and Emerging technology Center of the University of Georgetown published an Anna Puglisi report, a researcher who had recently left. The report says that the Chinese government probably participated in the financing of BGI's growth, a Chinese biotechnology company.

In a June letter, BGI accused Mrs. Puglisi of making defamatory claims and demanded that the report retract.

“We are still disappointed by Mrs. Puglisi's report, especially the numerous mistakes,” BGI said in a statement to New York Times.

Mrs. Puglisi became public with her experience during the testimony before the Chamber Committee in September.

“Talking today can put me in danger more,” Mrs. Puglisi said to the committee, “but I think that if we begin to self -control ourselves due to the actions of an authoritarian regime, we become more like them and less like an open democracy” .

After Mrs. Puglisi testified, Dewey Murdick, executive director of her former group of Georgetown experts, said the organization was behind her investigation.

“We carry out a careful review and we did not find evidence to contradict the findings or conclusions of the report,” he said in a publication about LinkedIn. BGI has not taken legal measures against Mrs. Puglisi.

In England, researchers at the University of Sheffield Hallam contacted Smart Shirts in November 2023 while preparing the report that links their parent company to forced labor practices, according to legal documents. After some back and above, during which the company denied the accusations, the University published the report in December.

In a complaint filed before the British Superior Court that month, Smart Shirts said the report was false and endangered its business by shirts for brands such as Hugo Boss, Ralph Lauren and Burberry. Smart Shirts said he believed that accusations “have extended through the effect of vine” among their clients.

British defamation laws are more favorable for plaintiffs than laws in the United States, which makes Great Britain a popular place for people to demand the media and others about things they write.

The university declined to comment.

In a statement to Times, Smart Shirts said he welcomed the investigation of the supply chain, but he felt disappointed that Sheffield Hallam has published the report without allowing the company first to correct the inaccuracies.

“Our demand aims to address material damage to our business that arises from its deceptive report,” said the company. “The objective of suppressing the important work of researchers in general.”