Background: Two Laws, One Mission
The Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (UFLPA), signed into law on December 23, 2021 and effective June 2022, builds upon Section 307 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which has prohibited the importation of goods made with forced labor into the United States for nearly a century. The UFLPA dramatically strengthened this framework by establishing a rebuttable presumption that any goods mined, produced, or manufactured in China's Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region (XUAR) — or by certain identified entities with ties to Xinjiang — are made with forced labor and therefore prohibited from entering the U.S. The law was passed with overwhelming bipartisan support in response to well-documented human rights abuses, including state-imposed forced labor programs targeting the Uyghur minority population. On the European side, the EU Regulation on Prohibiting Products Made with Forced Labour entered into force on December 13, 2024, and will begin to apply on December 14, 2027. It is part of a broader series of EU legislative initiatives addressing human rights in supply chains, sitting alongside the Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive (CSDDD) and the Corporate Sustainability Reporting Directive (CSRD). The regulation was adopted by the European Parliament with an overwhelming 555–6 majority and represents the EU's most comprehensive trade-based forced labor enforcement mechanism to date. Unlike the CSDDD and CSRD, the EU Forced Labor Regulation applies directly to companies without the need for additional implementing legislation at the national level.
The UFLPA and the EU Forced Labor Regulation diverge meaningfully on geographic reach, who must prove compliance, and how violations are handled — with the UFLPA being narrower but more stringent, and the EU regulation broader but more procedural.
One of the most significant distinctions between the two laws is geographic scope. The UFLPA is narrowly focused: it targets goods with supply chain connections to the Xinjiang region of China or to entities on the UFLPA Entity List. The EU Forced Labor Regulation, by contrast, applies universally — addressing forced labor in all geographic locations and industries, and covering all goods entering or leaving the EU market regardless of where they were made. This makes the EU regulation broader in reach, though less targeted in enforcement. The two laws also differ fundamentally on the burden of proof. Under the UFLPA, the burden lies entirely with the importer: the rebuttable presumption means that any goods connected to Xinjiang are automatically presumed to be made with forced labor, and the importer must provide clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. To date, no company has successfully overcome this presumption. The EU regulation takes the opposite approach — the burden of proof rests with the lead competent authority, which must establish a 'substantiated concern' based on objective, factual, and verifiable information before launching a full investigation. This is a notable and deliberate departure from the U.S. model, despite earlier EU parliamentary proposals that had drawn inspiration from the UFLPA's rebuttable presumption approach. Enforcement consequences also differ. Under the UFLPA, U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) can detain, exclude, or seize goods, and importers have 30 days to demonstrate why CBP should admit the goods. The EU regulation contemplates wider-ranging consequences: if forced labor is confirmed, authorities can prohibit the product from the EU market, order a recall of goods already on the market, and require that products be destroyed or rendered inoperable — preventing them from being rerouted to other markets. This is a notable contrast to the UFLPA, which allows manufacturers to withdraw products from the U.S. market and export them elsewhere. The EU framework also includes considerably more pre-enforcement process and formal opportunities for company engagement with authorities before a final decision is reached.
Multinational companies operating in both the U.S. and EU markets face a dual compliance burden, requiring deep supply chain visibility and tailored strategies for each regulatory framework.
Preparing for the UFLPA will satisfy some, but not all, of the requirements under the EU Forced Labor Regulation — and vice versa. Companies must understand the distinct scope of both laws and ensure they have policies and practices in place that are compliant with each. The UFLPA demands that importers maintain robust documentation and supply chain traceability specifically back to Xinjiang-connected inputs, while the EU regulation requires broader due diligence across all global supply chain tiers, covering any product in which forced labor may have occurred at any stage of extraction, harvest, production, or manufacture. Both laws share a common thread: the need for defensible, repeatable due diligence systems. Regulators increasingly require verifiable, auditable evidence rather than supplier surveys alone. Companies with complex, multi-tiered supply chains have already struggled significantly with UFLPA compliance, and the EU regulation will add another layer of scrutiny. To prepare, companies should deepen engagement with suppliers at all tiers, establish enforceable supplier codes of conduct, develop tracing systems that map supply chains down to raw materials, and periodically engage external human rights experts to independently verify due diligence protocols. The EU Commission is also expected to publish a risk database by June 2026 identifying specific geographic areas and product categories with elevated forced labor risks, which will likely trigger heightened enforcement attention similar to CBP's sector-based UFLPA priorities.
The UFLPA and the EU Forced Labor Regulation are part of a growing international consensus that supply chain transparency and forced labor accountability are non-negotiable standards for market access.
Beyond the U.S. and EU, similarly structured legal frameworks have emerged in Canada, Mexico, the United Kingdom, Australia, Germany, and Norway — all targeting forced labor risks in corporate supply chains. This convergence signals that forced labor due diligence is rapidly becoming a universal condition of doing business in major global markets, not a jurisdiction-specific concern. Governments, companies, and civil society are increasingly aligned on what responsible supply chain governance requires. For businesses, this means the compliance question is no longer whether to invest in supply chain visibility, but how to do so efficiently across multiple overlapping regulatory regimes. The UFLPA and EU Forced Labor Regulation overlap but do not fully align, creating the risk of duplicative supplier requests and fragmented evidence collection. Companies that build integrated, evidence-based compliance programs — capable of mapping suppliers across tiers, collecting reusable documentation, and monitoring for real-time risk signals — will be best positioned to meet both U.S. and EU requirements while avoiding costly enforcement actions, market access disruptions, and reputational harm.
*not sales material disguised as 'resources.'