Temu’s first 90 days: who is footing the bill?

Temu’s updated merchant agreement, which now fixes platform payouts at “within 90 days,” has exposed a fast-growing tension: who carries the cash-flow risk when a cross‑border marketplace scales up? Sellers say the change—first written into the platform’s cooperation framework—turns a typical 30–45 day settlement into a near‑quarter of capital tied up. The result is immediate pain for small and mid‑size merchants who must either hoard working capital or shrink order volume. Who pays when growth becomes costly: the platform, or the sellers?

What the rule does on the ground

Payout cycles are the lifeblood of e‑commerce sellers. Ship the goods, endure shipping and delivery, wait for buyer confirmation, then receive payment—every delay compounds. One Temu seller quoted by Huxiu calculated that 50,000 CNY of monthly sales that once rotated on a 30–45 day cycle would require roughly 150,000 CNY of liquidity under a 90‑day window. A five‑day dispute window for settlement objections further narrows sellers’ options. Some merchants argue that logistics—consumer delivery times—ultimately determine payout speed; others worry that the phrase “within 90 days” gives Temu ample legal space to postpone payments up to the last minute.

Scale, geopolitics and the liquidity squeeze

It has been reported that Temu’s parent is PDD (拼多多), and that a GF Securities report put Temu’s global monthly active users near 4.9 billion and its cross‑border market share at roughly 24% by 2025. That scale buys market leverage. But Temu also faces mounting costs and legal friction: it has been reported that UPS sued the platform in Ireland seeking more than €37m in unpaid freight, and the company weathered a 2025 U.S. tariff shock that briefly slashed North American sales after a 145% duty was announced. Rising logistics costs, trade policy volatility and lawsuits increase the platform’s funding needs. Reportedly, the 90‑day clause can be read as a way to keep a seller‑funded liquidity buffer on hand to absorb refund claims, delivery disputes or transport cost spikes.

Sellers have few alternatives. With Amazon, TikTok Shop and independent sites all competing for capital, many merchants grumble but stay put—Temu’s user retention and repeat‑purchase trends have only strengthened its bargaining position. The policy marks a shift from growth‑through‑subsidy to growth‑with‑risk‑sharing. Will regulators or merchants push back if extended payout windows become standard across cross‑border marketplaces? For now, small sellers must decide whether to finance Temu’s next phase of expansion—or walk away from a platform that, for many consumers, is becoming indispensable.