Summary

Import Bans: The recent proliferation of forced labor import bans in at least 49 countries and jurisdictions, including all of North America, nearly all of Europe, and 15 other markets, poses significant economic risks for companies selling or importing into those markets. Countries typically ban imports of all goods produced in whole or in part by forced labor anywhere in a company’s operations or supply chain. The bans generally apply to all companies without regard to size or sector.

Risks: The risk is highest for companies with Chinese suppliers or supply chains with any nexus to China, and for companies in import or export industries disproportionately vulnerable to forced labor, such electronics (including in the technology sector), agriculture, food and beverage, apparel, autos and auto parts, and aluminum, among others. If products are prohibited from market entry or even delayed at national borders, costs to companies can be substantial. To minimize risk, companies may wish to adopt policies against the use of forced labor in their operations and supply chains, and to carry out forced labor due diligence.

Rapid Spread

North America: The United States has banned imports of goods produced in whole or in part by forced labor since 1932,¹ with significant amendments in 2016 that resulted in the elimination of pre-existing exceptions. Subsequently, via the enactment of the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act (“UFLPA”) in 2022, the United States increased anti-forced labor enforcement by applying a presumption that goods are made with forced labor if produced, in whole or in part, in the Xinjiang region of China or by certain listed entities.² Canada and Mexico recently added bans pursuant to the United States-Canada-Mexico Agreement.³ Canada has a pending bill to strengthen enforcement.⁴

Europe: The European Union has adopted a ban for imports after December 14, 2027, and for goods imported earlier but which remain unsold.⁵ The EU ban will also apply in Norway, Iceland, Liechtenstein, and Northern Ireland.⁶ In July the UK’s then-Minister for Trade projected a ban to be adopted by the current Parliament.⁷ Separately, the EU Corporate Sustainability Due Diligence Directive, revised in 2026, imposes a duty of vigilance requiring large, in-scope companies to conduct human rights due diligence that encompasses forced labor.⁸

Others: Bans have recently been adopted by such major markets as India⁹ and Indonesia,¹⁰ as well as by Cambodia, the Dominican Republic, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Israel, Pakistan, the Philippines, Sri Lanka, Taiwan, Trinidad and Tobago, Uruguay and Vietnam. Brazil and Peru have draft bans in the pipeline. Argentina, Bangladesh, Malaysia, and Thailand have committed to bans under U.S. reciprocal trade agreements. South Africa has announced public consultation on a ban.

Impetus: The recent proliferation stems largely from U.S. trade policy, implemented by tariffs¹¹ and trade agreements.¹² While import bans are controversial in some countries, the goal of combatting forced labor is widely shared. Forced labor is nearly universally banned under International Labor Organization (“ILO”) Convention 29, adopted in 1930, to which 181 countries are now parties.

Extent: The ILO estimates that about 17 million persons are subjected to forced labor in the private sector worldwide, and another 4 million by State actors.¹³

Definition: Most national import bans adopt the definition in ILO Convention 29 of forced labor as “all work or service that is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the worker does not offer themselves voluntarily.”¹⁴

Indicia: According to the European Commission, common indicia include: “a) forced recruitment; b) deception; c) exploitation of debt; d) hazardous or degrading working conditions; e) onerous working hours or work schedule; f) degrading work-related living conditions; g) abusive additional obligations; h) physical or sexual violence; i) abuse of isolation; j) restrictions on workers’ movements; k) retention of cash, assets or identity documents; l) withholding of wages; m) threats or intimidation; and n) abuse of vulnerability.”¹⁵

By Industry: The ILO estimates that forced labor globally is most prevalent in services; manufacturing, including of electronics, mainly in the lower tiers of supply chains; construction; agriculture; domestic work; and mining and quarrying.¹⁶ Forced labor is exacted at a far higher rate from migrant workers than from non-migrants. Services are generally (but not always) excluded from forced labor import bans, which cover only goods. However, goods produced in part through forced labor services, such as transportation of goods, are covered by the bans.

Mechanisms

The mechanisms by which forced labor import bans are carried out vary in elements such as who bears the burden of proof, whether customs agents can stop suspect goods at the border or must await subsequent administrative determinations, and how long before such determinations may be made and enforced.

• “Short Fuse” Enforcement: Under the UFLPA, the United States applies a rebuttable presumption that “goods, wares, articles, and merchandise mined, produced, or manufactured wholly or in part” in the Xinjiang region of China, or produced by one of 187 entities currently on an Entity List,¹⁷ were made with forced labor. U.S. Customs and Border Protection (“CBP”) regularly detains shipments at the border for UFLPA compliance review. The importer has a brief time to decide whether to provide supply chain tracing information to CBP or to export the goods. The burden is on the importer to rebut the presumption by “clear and convincing” evidence. This is a high standard to meet and requires thorough diligence and supporting documentation. Goods can be withheld at the border based on information that they “may be” produced by forced labor,¹⁸ subject to subsequent review, and the goods ultimately may be seized. In practice, if the first time that an importer examines its supply chains for UFLPA risk is when a shipment is detained, it is too late.
• Under UFLPA, CBP has denied entry to nearly 25,000 shipments, collectively worth nearly $1 billion.¹⁹ Enforcement data are made available to the trade on a UFLPA Dashboard that tracks actions by reference to the involved Centers of Excellence and Expertise (“CEE”), i.e., the industry-specific offices within CBP. To date, most of the UFLPA exclusions from entry relate to shipments under the jurisdiction of the Electronics CEE. Others include the following: Base Metals; Automotive and Aerospace; Apparel, Footwear and Textiles; Machinery; Industrial and Manufacturing Materials; Pharmaceuticals, Health and Chemicals; Consumer Products and Mass Merchandising; Agriculture and Prepared Products; and Petroleum, Natural Gas and Minerals.
• Recent CBP guidance signals scrutiny of high-risk sectors and inputs including apparel, cotton and cotton products, polysilicon, tomatoes, aluminum, polyvinyl chloride, seafood, caustic soda, copper, lithium, red dates and steel.²⁰
• The Canadian government has introduced a bill, currently before the Parliament (Bill C-35), utilizing a somewhat similar framework, and not limited to goods or entities from Xinjiang.
• Medium-Term Enforcement Scenarios: The longstanding forced labor statute (19 U.S. Code § 307) allows CBP to seize reasonably suspected forced labor goods at the border, subject to subsequent review. The main differences from UFLPA are that (1) the burden is on the government to prove forced labor, not on the importer to disprove it, but the government needs only a “reasonabl[e] but not conclusive[] indicat[ion]” of forced labor,²¹ and (2) there is no “entity list.” Under this authority CBP has issued 58 Withhold Release Orders (“WROs”) against goods from 17 countries, and nine Findings of violations. Most WROs and Findings were against China.²² While most of CBP’s enforcement activity since UFLPA enforcement began in July 2022 has focused on UFLPA matters, the United States retains broad authority to prohibit imports of goods made with forced labor (and child labor) from any source.
• Longer-Term Enforcement Scenarios: Most bans are closer to those in Mexico and the EU. Goods not already found to be products of forced labor cannot be stopped at the border until an administrative determination months later. Even then, the determination is subject to judicial review. The burden of proof is on the government, not the importer. Both the Mexican and the Canadian bans have been widely criticized as ineffective.²³ Nonetheless, government investigations can be demanding on the importer, and failure to cooperate can lead to sanctions.

Third Country Bypasses: Forced labor import bans block not only goods from the country where the forced labor took place, but also goods from countries which incorporate components from the country of origin. More goods recently barred under the UFLPA reportedly came from Malaysia, Vietnam and Thailand, than from China.²⁴

Potential Costs: Noncompliance may require companies to incur significant expenses for legal fees, storage and demurrage charges, and potential lost sales. Operations may be disrupted and supplier relationships strained. One study found that noncompliance for a single detention can cost over $800,000.²⁵ Under stricter CBP 2026 guidance,²⁶ costs may be even higher.

Disclosure and Due Diligence Laws: While not outright bans, forced labor import disclosure and due diligence laws in some jurisdictions (e.g., the UK Modern Slavery Act, Germany's Supply Chain Due Diligence Act, France's Duty of Vigilance Law, etc.) can be onerous and expose companies to potential legal liability. For example, Australia is currently proposing revisions to its Modern Slavery Act 2018 that will allow the government to impose civil penalties (along with other enforcement mechanisms) on companies with annual revenue over A$100 million that do not comply with the associated reporting obligations, while also establishing potential criminal penalties for in-scope companies that fail to take reasonable steps to identify, prevent, and address forced labor risks.²⁷

Mitigating Risks: To avoid or mitigate forced labor import ban risks, companies should combine policies against forced labor in their operations and supply chains with concrete and traceable steps to map their supply chains and to carry out forced labor due diligence.

As explained by the European Commission,²⁸ forced labor due diligence mirrors human rights due diligence generally. It includes the following steps: (1) embed responsible business conduct into policies and management systems, (2) identify actual or potential adverse impacts in operations, supply chains and business relationships, (3) cease, prevent or mitigate adverse impacts, (4) track implementation and results, (5) communicate how impacts are addressed, and (6) provide for or cooperate in remediation when appropriate. In addition, “[m]eaningful engagement with stakeholders is important throughout the due diligence process.”²⁹

Under European Commission guidance, forced labor due diligence may be considered during the investigation of whether goods are the product of forced labor. Due diligence may also make it less likely that a company will be harmed by a finding of forced labor that could have been anticipated and avoided or mitigated.  

External Counsel: Faced by the rapid spread of forced labor import bans worldwide, companies may benefit from assistance of external counsel. King & Spalding is prepared to assist in developing policies and due diligence procedures, and when forced labor issues arise, to conduct investigations and to devise remedial plans where needed.