Beyond Takedowns: Disrupting the Business of Counterfeiting

A brand protection program can remove thousands of infringing listings and still leave the business behind them largely intact. Sellers return under different accounts, storefronts multiply, and counterfeit goods continue reaching customers. AI compounds the problem: the same technology that helps rights holders detect infringement can help counterfeiters generate replacement listings and create new accounts more quickly. Such is the neverending game of whack-a-mole confronting brands. When the same commercial operation can repeatedly rebuild its online presence, the number of listings removed tells only part of the story. In today’s brand protection fight it is necessary to know which sellers are connected, whether customers are encountering fewer counterfeits, and what would disrupt the operation supplying them.

For in-house counsel and brand protection leaders, the difficult question is not whether monitoring and enforcement should be undertaken, but which activities are likely to produce meaningful commercial results. This challenge drove our recent webinar, Brand Protection Across Global Marketplaces: Why Takedowns Are Not Enough, featuring Kaleigh Miller and Vicki Wang of MarqVision, Joseph Cherayath of Katalyst Advisory, and Adam Sulewski of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. The discussion connected marketplace enforcement with investigations and customs intervention.

Identifying Infringement

A recurring point discussed was that information gathered from a listing should help inform the next enforcement decision, whether that means another complaint, an account-level escalation, or an investigation reaching beyond the platform. But how do you demonstrate an appropriate return on investment justifying enforcement activities when another infringing listing can appear almost as quickly as one disappears? It can indeed be difficult to explain the value behind a brand protection campaign to business leaders who need to make budget decisions often based on numbers alone.

Miller supplied a practical starting point: concentrate on infringements customers are most likely to encounter and purchase. She identified search visibility, units available, and units sold as relevant performance indicators. A seller prominently appearing in customer searches warrants a different level of attention from an obscure storefront attracting little traffic. Reporting those distinctions gives management a more useful explanation of enforcement priorities than an undifferentiated count of notices. It also explains that strategic decisions are being made in a cost-conscious way to get the biggest benefit out of the budget spend.

The Triage Approach

As any brand protection professional can attest, a triage approach to brand protection requires making choices that can be uncomfortable for rights holders. Miller acknowledged the instinct to remove everything, but emphasized that budgets and opportunities for escalation are limited. She suggested that resources are often better spent on listings appearing in the first few pages of search results than on activity customers are unlikely to find. The same discipline applies when seeking intervention from a platform or law enforcement: escalating every problem undermines the ability to focus on the most consequential ones, and to get attention from those in a position to help when it matters most. For counsel, the practical task is to connect enforcement priorities to customer exposure and commercial harm, then explain why a particular seller or network merits additional investment and attention. And no one is saying that a lower-priority listing shouldn’t remain on the enforcement agenda, those less consequential listings and seller just can’t command the same level of resources.

Miller illustrated the potential impact with an anonymized activewear campaign covering 19 Chinese platforms. She reported approximately 179,000 listing removals and 319 stores removed, with another 567 stores in the strike process. More revealing than the raw volume was the reported reduction in counterfeit share of Taobao and Tmall search results from 96% to 15%. Those figures describe one campaign, not a general promise of results. They nevertheless demonstrate why the customer’s experience matters as a measure of progress. Asked whether large numbers of listings could reflect a relatively concentrated group of bad actors, Miller explained that identifying seller networks and reporting those relationships to platforms helped support broader action. The objective was to reduce the network’s presence across the marketplace.

Reporting Quality vs. Quantity

That makes platform relationships an enforcement asset with practical consequences. Miller discussed dedicated reporting and escalation channels, sharing seller-level intelligence, and cooperation between platforms and rights holders on offline investigations. She also explained that escalation can involve direct contact with designated platform personnel to address problems at scale, as well as using available appeals procedures. Repeat-offender policies create another opportunity, but counsel must understand how the relevant platform counts complaints and applies penalties. A program that repeatedly removes individual listings without connecting them to the same seller misses the opportunity for account-level action. The quality and organization of the information supplied can therefore matter as much as the number of reports submitted.

The China discussion exposed the limits of assuming that a familiar enforcement process will work everywhere. Miller reported a roughly 95% compliance rate for MarqVision’s reports to Chinese platforms, compared with about 94% globally, but said the median time from an enforcement request to removal was approximately two weeks. Some platforms acted within a few days; others took substantially longer. Those figures reflect the experience she presented, rather than universal platform benchmarks. Still, the distinction is important: a platform can ultimately act on a high proportion of complaints while leaving infringing goods available during a commercially significant delay. Enforcement teams need to evaluate both whether complaints succeed and how quickly they change what customers can buy.

Wang, drawing on experience with both platforms and brand owners, emphasized the importance of an appropriate Chinese IP portfolio and understanding each platform’s evidentiary requirements. Miller recommended preparing supporting documentation in advance, including powers of attorney and relevant brand imagery, rather than addressing those needs after infringement becomes urgent. Audience questions also highlighted access restrictions on Chinese platforms, including registration and identification obstacles. In response, Miller pointed to the value of personnel in China for accessibility, language, and relationships. For counsel overseeing an international program, these are operational prerequisites deserving attention before a crisis. Increasing complaint volume cannot compensate for inadequate rights documentation, inaccessible evidence, or a submission that fails to address the platform’s requirements.

Implementing an Investigative Strategy

Cherayath expanded the discussion beyond conventional marketplace searches with an example especially relevant to fashion, apparel, and accessories brands. He described an affiliate-driven counterfeit supply chain in which social media promotion directs buyers to spreadsheets or shared catalogs, shopping agents arrange purchases, and goods move through warehouses and parcel shipments. The apparent storefront may be only one element of a much larger operation. Removing the visible post can leave the underlying commercial relationships intact. For brand owners, that changes the investigative question: understanding how a buyer reaches the product can be as important as locating the product listing itself. Cherayath described agents obtaining product photographs before shipment and goods moving in small parcels that are difficult to inspect individually. That example shows why monitoring brand names on major marketplaces alone can leave important parts of the purchasing process outside an enforcement team’s view.

That broader investigation also creates a tension between speed and evidence preservation. Cherayath cautioned that removing an account before collecting the relevant intelligence can eliminate access to information needed for a larger enforcement action. Posts, catalogs, account identities, and referral relationships may help connect apparently separate activity and support escalation to platforms or law enforcement. The practical implication is that takedowns should fit into an investigative strategy. Teams need to consider what evidence to capture, which connections merit further investigation, and when immediate removal best serves the brand’s overall objectives. Those decisions require judgment about both the immediate harm and the opportunity for broader disruption.

Opportunities and Solutions

AI can help make that work more manageable. Miller described its value in connecting seller networks and extracting information that previously demanded substantial human effort. As I emphasized during the discussion, counterfeiters are already using the tools available to them; brand owners need to use those capabilities as well. But detecting more activity only increases the need for informed prioritization. Wang emphasized the continuing role of experienced people in resolving complex enforcement problems. Technology can accelerate the investigation and reveal connections, while practitioners determine what the information means and which action offers the greatest prospect of a useful result.

Sulewski supplied the final essential perspective: counterfeit goods still move through physical supply chains, and changes in customs enforcement could make those operations more difficult to sustain. President Trump’s Executive Order 14411, Strengthening Customs Enforcement, signed June 3, 2026, directs reforms addressing importer accountability, eligibility, and supply-chain transparency. Although implementation will have consequences for legitimate importers, Sulewski emphasized the potential to make importing substantially more difficult for counterfeiters operating through elusive entities with little meaningful presence or accountability in the United States. Greater scrutiny of who is importing goods and the commercial operations behind those shipments could help address the same problem confronting online enforcement: removing one visible participant accomplishes little if the underlying network remains beyond reach.

Have Your Say

Brand owners have an opportunity to help shape that implementation. CBP is accepting comments through December 1, 2026, on its advance notice of proposed rulemaking, Heightened Import Disclosures for Supply Chain Visibility. The notice seeks input on identifying parties involved in importation, tracing supply chains, and obtaining foreign export documentation. Brand owners, counsel, and others engaged in fighting counterfeits should take the time to review the proposals and submit informed comments through Regulations.gov. Practical examples of how counterfeiters obscure their identities and supply chains can help explain where additional disclosure would strengthen enforcement, while identifying unnecessary burdens on legitimate commerce. Businesses confronting these problems every day have experience policymakers need to hear. Participating in this process should be part of a comprehensive brand protection strategy.