In the perpetual battle against human trafficking, the law is of vital importance. Without it, traffickers would operate with impunity, freely exploiting vulnerable people and profiting from their suffering. This raises the question: what happens when laws are manipulated to protect traffickers instead of victims? What happens when governments themselves use the law to retaliate against companies trying to uphold human rights?

Unbeknownst to most, this type of coercion is currently being executed in China. PVH Corp., owner of major fashion brands Calvin Klein, Tommy Hilfiger, and Van Heusen, has been targeted for refusing to violate U.S. sanctions that penalize the use of cotton sourced from forced labor in China’s Xinjiang region. In effect, China is using legal and political pressure to punish PVH for avoiding complicity in modern day slavery.

---

Allegations Against China: A Human Rights Crisis

The stage for the PVH investigation was set in 2021 when the United States passed the Uyghur Forced Labor Prevention Act. The act prescribes that, unless refuted, any goods coming wholly or in part out of China’s Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region were made with forced labor and prohibited from import into the United States. This was followed by the 2023 Xinjiang Supply Chain Business Advisory, which encourages businesses to ensure that their supply chains do not contain goods produced by forced labor.

The cause of this crackdown on goods from Xinjiang is that, according to the U.S. government, the Chinese government has been committing “genocide, state-imposed forced labor, and crimes against humanity,” in the region of Xinjiang and across China against Muslim minority groups. According to the U.S. Department of Labor, the victims are subject to imprisonment (with their documentation seized), where they are forced to work, paid very little (if at all), cut off from family, forced to learn Mandarin Chinese, and “undergo ideological indoctrination.”

In its own investigations, the United Nations, although it has not called China’s actions a genocide, has somewhat corroborated U.S. claims in stating that “allegations of patterns of torture, or ill-treatment, including forced medical treatment and adverse conditions of detention, are credible, as are allegations of individual incidents of sexual and gender-based violence,” and that “restrictions and deprivation more generally of fundamental rights, enjoyed individually and collectively, may constitute international crimes, in particular crimes against humanity.”

---

China’s Response: Legal and Economic Retaliation

This offensive against forced labor in Chinese production struck a nerve with Chinese authorities, especially because 80% of China’s cotton production comes from Xinjiang. Responses have varied by company, ranging from public statements — such as the Xinjiang Uyghur Autonomous Region Cotton Producer’s Association saying they “hope international brands like Uniqlo can give Xinjiang cotton full respect and trust,” — to retaliation, such as placing companies that refuse to use Xinjiang cotton on an “Unreliable Entities List,” (UEL). 

According to the Chinese government, any foreign company that meets the following criteria may be placed on the Unreliable Entities List:

• “Endangers the national sovereignty, security, or development interests of China;
• Or which suspends normal transactions with, or adopts discriminatory measures against, a Chinese enterprise, organization or individual, in violation of normal market transaction principles and causing serious damage to the legitimate rights or interests of such Chinese enterprise, organization or individual.” 

Once listed, a company may face serious penalties, including:

• Bans on importing to or exporting from China
• Restrictions on investing in or operating within China
• Prohibitions on company personnel traveling to China
• Monetary fines

These actions can be determined and taken without a formal investigation “where the facts are considered to be clear.” However, the Chinese government may offer a “rectification period,” in which the company can escape sanctions if it alters its conduct. This policy serves as China’s legal basis for countersanctioning companies that comply with U.S. sanctions or refuse to overlook its human rights abuses, effectively using legal and economic pressure to intimidate. 

---

China Targets PVH for Complying with U.S. Law

This conflict between great powers for control of the corporate space came to a head in September 2024 when the Chinese Commerce Ministry announced it was investigating the company PVH, owner of popular brands Tommy Hilfiger and Calvin Klein. The ministry claimed that “The U.S. PVH Group is suspected of violating normal market trading principles and unreasonably boycotting Xinjiang cotton and other products without factual basis, seriously damaging the legitimate rights and interests of relevant Chinese companies and endangering China’s sovereignty, security and development interests,” and stated that “the investigation would be under the rules of China’s ‘Unreliable Entities List.’” It further argued that PVH’s actions had “seriously damaged the legitimate rights and interests of relevant Chinese companies and endangered China’s sovereignty, security, and development interests.” The investigation, according to the ministry, would proceed under the rules of China’s Unreliable Entities List.

In response, PVH stated, “As a matter of company policy, PVH maintains strict compliance with all relevant laws and regulations in all countries and regions in which we operate, … including with respect to U.S. government policy regarding the Xinjiang.” In February 2025, China’s investigation culminated with PVH’s officially being added to the retaliatory Unreliable Entities List and subjected to fines, restrictions, and bans on its products.

---

The Global Stakes of Legal Retaliation

At its core, the PVH investigation and retaliation is an attempt by the Chinese government to force the rest of the world to buy into modern day slavery and labor exploitation. This conflict represents a pivotal battle in the fight against human trafficking because it centers on the enforcement of laws designed to combat forced labor and protect human rights. As long as authoritarian regimes can threaten and coerce companies, the global fight against trafficking in countries like China remains fragile.