Chinese Companies’ New Tactic to Stop Damaging Research: Legal Threats, 12 Feb 2025

[Subscription required]

A little over a year ago, a group of researchers at Sheffield Hallam University in England published a report documenting a Chinese clothing company’s potential ties to forced labor. Members of the British Parliament cited the report ahead of a November debate that criticized China for “slavery and forced labor from another era.”

But Smart Shirts, which is a subsidiary of the manufacturer and makes clothing for major labels, filed a defamation lawsuit. And in December, a British judge delivered a ruling: The case would move forward, which could result in the university’s paying damages.

The preliminary finding in the case against the university is the latest in a series of legal challenges roiling the think tanks and universities that research human rights abuses and security violations by Chinese companies. To stop the unfavorable reports, which have led to political debate and in some cases export restrictions, the companies are firing back with defamation accusations.

Chinese companies have sued or sent threatening legal letters to researchers in the United States, Europe and Australia close to a dozen times in recent years in an attempt to quash negative information, with half of those coming in the past two years. The unusual tactic borrows from a playbook used by corporations and celebrities to discourage damaging news coverage in the media.

The budding legal tactic by Chinese firms could silence critics who shed light on problematic business practices inside one of the most powerful countries in the world, researchers warn. The legal action is having a chilling effect on their work, they say, and in many cases straining the finances of their organizations.

[...]

One of the first examples occurred in 2019 when Huawei, a Chinese telecommunications giant, threatened to sue the Australian Strategic Policy Institute, an Australian think tank.

[...]

Huawei and China’s embassy did not respond to requests for comment.

[...]

Eric Sayers, who focuses on U.S.-Chinese technology policy at the American Enterprise Institute think tank, received a letter in September from lawyers demanding that he take down an opinion article he co-wrote about a Chinese drone company, Autel Robotics.

[...]

Autel’s representatives called the article “defamatory and damaging” and threatened to sue if it wasn’t removed, although they eventually dropped the matter.

[...]

In May, the Center for Security and Emerging Technology at Georgetown University published a report by Anna Puglisi, a researcher who had recently departed. The report said the Chinese government was most likely involved in funding the growth of BGI, a Chinese biotechnology company.

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

[...]

In a complaint filed with the British High Court that month, Smart Shirts said the report was false and jeopardized its business making shirts for brands.

[...]

In a statement to The Times, Smart Shirts said it welcomed supply chain research, but was disappointed that Sheffield Hallam had published the report without first allowing the company to correct inaccuracies.

[The article mentions Smart Shirts, Huawei, Autel Robotics and BGI]