United States

The Trademark Counterfeiting Act, 18 U.S.C. § 2320 (TCA), is the primary federal criminal law involving counterfeiting. It was enacted in 1984 to amend the federal criminal code to make it a federal offense to violate the Lanham Act by the unauthorized or intentional use of a counterfeit trademark.

Criminal proceedings typically involve violations of the TCA, which relates to trademark counterfeiting only, and are most often brought in federal courts. Counterfeiting rises to the level of a criminal offense when it involves an intent to defraud in passing off the counterfeit item. Prosecutors often combine other charges when prosecuting the TCA, including criminal conspiracy under 18 U.S.C. § 371, mail fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1341, wire fraud under 18 U.S.C. § 1343, money laundering under 18 U.S.C. §§ 1956-1957, violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO) under 18 U.S.C. §1961, among other federal and sometimes state charges. In addition to the TCA, there are also corresponding state statutes, which have similar burdens of proof and thresholds for liability.

To assert a criminal offense under the TCA, the government must prove the following elements:

• that the defendant intentionally trafficked, attempted or conspired to traffic in goods, services, labels, patches, stickers, wrappers, badges, emblems, medallions, charms, boxes, containers, cans, cases, hangtags, documentation, or packaging of any type or nature;
• that the defendant knowingly used or applied a counterfeit mark likely to cause mistake, confusion or deception; and
• that the mark is counterfeit pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 2320(f).

The cooperation of the trademark owner is necessary to prove both the validity of the owner’s trademark rights and that the goods being sold are not genuine.

The penalties provided under the TCA are:

• for an individual’s first offense, a fine of up to USD 2,000,000 or imprisonment for up to 10 years, or both, and for an entity, the fine increases to not more than USD 5,000,000; or
• for an individual’s second or subsequent offense, a fine of up to USD 5,000,000 or imprisonment for up to 20 years, or both, or for an entity, a fine of not more than USD 15,000,000.

Under section 2320(c), convicted counterfeiters are typically ordered to reimburse victims of their crimes (including the trademark owners). Law enforcement authorities will also seize the counterfeit goods during the investigations and will destroy or otherwise dispose of the counterfeit goods after convictions.

In the US, civil enforcement remedies for counterfeiting are provided by the Lanham Act, and such cases are litigated in US federal courts since the Lanham Act is a federal statute. Counterfeiting cases, distinct from trademark infringement cases, both of which arise under the Lanham Act, involve “counterfeit marks” (i.e., spurious marks that are identical with, or substantially indistinguishable from, registered marks). In order to be eligible to bring a counterfeiting claim, the trademark must be registered with the USPTO. Owners of registered marks may also bring an action for trademark infringement under 15 U.S.C. § 1114, or absent a registration, infringement of unregistered marks and/or federal unfair competition under 15 U.S.C. §1125(a). In order to prevail with regard to a trademark infringement or counterfeiting claim, the plaintiff has the burden of proving that it owns a valid and legally protected mark, and the defendant’s use of the mark causes a likelihood of confusion.

While for trademark infringement and unfair competition a plaintiff is eligible to seek its actual damages as well as the infringer’s profits and costs (including enhanced discretionary damages) under 15 U.S.C. § 1117(a), counterfeiting provides certain heightened damages remedies. Specifically, in the case of willful counterfeiting, treble damages or in lieu of actual damages and profits, a rights holder is able to seek statutory damages of up to USD 2,000,000 per counterfeit mark per type of goods or services sold, offered for sale or distributed (or up to USD 200,000 if willfulness cannot be shown). Attorneys’ fees can also be sought and will be awarded if there is a finding that a case is “exceptional”. In addition to monetary compensation, rights holders can also seek injunctive relief, including ex parte relief on an expedited basis. Recently, the TMA codified the presumption of irreparable harm for trademark owners, thus making it easier to obtain injunctive relief in trademark infringement and counterfeiting actions. In addition, rights holders can seek (and obtain) seizure, asset freeze and destruction orders. (See 15 U.S.C §§ 1116, 1118.)

US case law involving the distribution and/or sale of counterfeit goods is robust and always evolving. For example, in 2021, the Second Circuit, in Omega SA v. 375 Canal, LLC, 984 F.3d 244 (2d Cir. 2021), revisited the issue of contributory liability for landlords, and affirmed a jury verdict finding that the defendant landlord was contributorily liable. The Second Circuit shed further light on its Tiffany decision (Tiffany (NJ) Inc. v. eBay Inc., 600 F.3d 93, 106 (2d Cir. 2010)), and confirmed that actual knowledge “of a specific infringer” is not required in all cases, but instead, willful blindness is sufficient, including the landlord’s “history of turning a blind eye toward counterfeiting at 375 Canal Street” and “insufficient steps to root out the counterfeiting it knew or should have known was occurring” (Omega v. 375 Canal at 254–255). Also in 2021, the Sixth Circuit, in Ohio State Univ. v. Redbubble, Inc., 989 F.3d 435 (6th Cir. 2021), overturned summary judgment in favor of the print-on-demand online marketplace, Redbubble, and analyzed the spectrum of marketplace liability (i.e., brick-and-mortar locations on one side, and certain passive online marketplaces on the other). Ultimately, it found summary judgment improper because Redbubble was more than a mere facilitator of sales, given — among other things — the products were delivered in Redbubble packaging and with Redbubble tags. More recently, in the Southern District of New York, Alibaba and AliExpress moved to dismiss complaints (alleging that they were both direct and contributory trademark infringers) and the motions were denied: Kelly Toys Holdings, LLC v. 19885566 Store, et al., Case No. 1:22-cv-9384 (S.D.N.Y.); King Spider LLC v. 884886 CH Store, et al., Case No. 23-cv-3472 (S.D.N.Y.).

One area of the law that is constantly expanding is the issue of grey market goods (i.e., “a foreign-manufactured good, bearing a valid United States trademark, which is imported without the consent of the United States trademark holder”: K Mart Corp. v. Cartier, Inc., 486 U.S. 281, 285 (1988)). Under US law, grey market goods are permissible so long as they are not “materially different” from the goods sold in the US Thus, much of the case law surrounding this issue focuses on what constitutes a material difference. See, for example, Dan-Foam A/S & Tempur-Pedic, Inc. v. Brand Named Beds, LLC, 500 F. Supp. 2d 296 (S.D.N.Y. 2007) (collecting cases exemplifying what constitutes a material difference, including differences in packaging, warranty protection and quality control procedures). To the extent a material difference is found, a rights holder may seek the remedies provided under the Lanham Act for trademark infringement; however, criminal penalties generally cannot be imposed. See United States v. Cone, 714 F.3d 197 (4th Cir. 2013); and 18 U.S.C. § 2320(e)(1)(B) (“authorized use” exception). Additionally, US Customs and Border Protection has the authority to prevent the entry of goods that are found to constitute grey market goods, and the US International Trade Commission is able to grant exclusion orders blocking the importation of such goods.

Aside from the Lanham Act and criminal counterfeiting, there are a litany of regulations in the United States, which are intended to protect consumers from the hazards of counterfeit goods. For example, the US Consumer Product Safety Commission administers and enforces laws relating to products that pose safety concerns; the Food and Drug Administration issues and enforces regulations relating to food, drugs, cosmetics, and so on; and the Federal Trade Commission enforces laws pertaining to the prevention of fraud, deception and unfair competition, including, but not limited to, marketing and product labelling.

Decisions on how best to pursue a counterfeiter are quite complex, and most often require a multipronged approach, including several of the measures explained here. Before making a decision to pursue a matter civilly, a rights holder will typically first conduct its own private investigation of the counterfeiter (internally or using a private investigator or third-party online enforcement service) by conducting background research, surveillance, and/or purchases. Enforcement efforts, especially those involving the internet, can be complicated by an infringer’s ability to hide behind fake aliases or domain register privacy settings, which not only make the pursuit of infringers difficult, but also the collection of any monetary judgment that may be rendered.

Criminal prosecution has benefits (including serious penalties for counterfeiting), and it is less expensive for a rights holder than bringing a civil litigation since it is initiated by the government. However, some of the challenges associated with criminal enforcement include higher burdens of proof (including proving that the counterfeiting was intentional) and relying on law enforcement officials (which can severely delay the action, as counterfeiting is typically given a low priority as compared to other criminal offenses).

Over the past few years, there has been an increased prevalence of social media influencers creating content on YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Reddit and other social media platforms to promote the sale of counterfeit goods on traditional platforms such as DHGate and AliExpress. More recently, social media influencers have been found promoting counterfeit products via live streams and online shopping platforms that aid consumers wishing to purchase goods on popular Chinese e-commerce platforms such as Taobao and 1688, which are known for selling counterfeit products, and are directed towards businesses and consumers based in China and do not ship products directly to the US. Some of the more popular platforms that conduct this type of business are Pandabuy, CSSBuy, Sugargoo and Superbuy. These platforms specifically target US consumers by translating the information posted on merchant storefronts on Taobao and 1688 from Chinese to English to enable US consumers to shop on these platforms. Consumers, without access to merchant storefronts on Taobao and 1688, search for and identify items they wish to purchase via the translated listings and instruct the platform agents to purchase the products, who direct shipment to their warehouses in China. Once the shipments are received in the warehouse in China, they are unpackaged and photographed and the photographs are sent to the end consumer for review and approval. Upon approval and receipt of shipping instructions from the consumer, these platforms repackage the product(s) and ship the same to the consumers located in the U.S.

Social media influencers are compensated by the platforms for conducting video “un-boxings” or reviews of purchases they have made through the platforms and for providing their viewers/followers access to the same counterfeit products by including customized links to the counterfeit products on their own social media platform pages. The influencers also, in what has become common practice, create and disseminate Excel spreadsheets that contain hundreds or thousands of photos and links to counterfeit products on the platforms to provide consumers with easy access to 1688 and Taobao listings.

Since the China-based platforms target US consumers, they can be pursued in US courts. Recently, US courts have issued temporary restraining orders and asset freezes to prevent further counterfeiting misconduct occurring via such platforms.

Given the advancements in social media promotion discussed in Section 2.1, above, there has seemingly been a shift among the younger Gen Z and millennial generations, who purchase through social media, rather than via traditional Shopify designed-websites and retail platforms such as Alibaba, DHGate and Amazon. The same young consumers are flocking to retail platforms such as Shein.com and Temu.com. There has also been a post-COVID return to brick-and-mortar retail and wholesale counterfeiting.

Since counterfeiting has become more widespread among a wider net of brands, there are many more companies providing services to target counterfeits, particularly on the internet. In addition to traditional takedown services, there are website and platform-crawling services using AI to seek out counterfeits by scanning brand names and brand images. Given the wider net of brands facing these challenges and the less expensive nature of the technology used to combat counterfeiting, there is a greater opportunity for more brands to carry out additional enforcement with more readily available technology than was available just a few years ago.

Also, brand owners continue to pursue counterfeiters located in China through the US court system, seeking injunctions and asset freezes at a never-before-seen level. While the number of lawsuits has increased, there is much less successful recovery of frozen assets as counterfeiters have become more sophisticated in running their online operations, often cleaning out the relevant financial accounts on a daily basis.

The following is a list of the most popular targeted platforms for takedowns and lawsuit restraining orders and asset freeze actions: Alibaba, AliExpress, DHGate, Amazon, Temu, Shein, Walmart, Tiktok, Instagram and Shopify.

When a dispute over a domain name occurs, a trademark owner has options, including commencing a lawsuit under the Anti-cybersquatting Consumer Protection Act 15 U.S.C. § 1125(D) (ACPA) in federal court or filing a complaint pursuant to the Uniform Domain Name Dispute Resolution Policy (UDRP).

Under the ACPA, a trademark owner may bring an action against a domain name registrant who has a bad faith intent to profit from the owner’s trademark, and registers, traffics in, or uses a domain name that is identical or confusingly similar to a distinctive or famous mark. If successful in bringing a claim under the ACPA, a court can order the forfeiture, cancellation or transfer of the infringing domain name: 15 U.S.C. § 1117(D)(1)(c). A mark owner may also obtain injunctive relief and can elect to recover either their actual damages or statutory damages between USD 1,000 and USD 100,000 per infringing domain (15 U.S.C. § 1117).

The UDRP was designed to provide a relatively quick, low-cost and streamlined alternative to initiating a lawsuit; however, the only remedies available under the UDRP are cancellation of the infringing domain name or transfer of the infringing domain name to the trademark owner. In a UDRP proceeding, a trademark owner must prove:

• the domain name is identical or confusingly similar to the owner’s trademark;
• the domain registrant does not have any rights or legitimate interest in the domain name; and
• the domain name has been registered and is being used in “bad faith”.

Domain name abuse continues to evolve alongside broader shifts in e-commerce, social media, and AI-driven fraud. Brand owners continue to face significant risks from opportunistic domain registrations tied to major news events, emerging technologies, cryptocurrency projects, AI services, livestream commerce, and trending consumer products. Cybersquatters and counterfeit networks increasingly use deceptive domain names to impersonate legitimate brands, redirect consumers to counterfeit marketplaces, harvest consumer data, or support broader phishing and social media fraud campaigns. These activities are frequently coordinated across websites, social media accounts, and private messaging channels, making enforcement more fragmented and difficult to address.

WIPO and other domain dispute forums continue to report substantial volumes of UDRP filings, underscoring the continuing importance of domain enforcement as part of broader brand protection strategies. WIPO reported record levels of domain name disputes in 2025, reflecting the growing use of domain names in connection with phishing, impersonation, and online fraud schemes. At the same time, bad actors have become increasingly sophisticated in their use of typosquatting, AI-generated content, rapidly rotating domains, and deceptive domain structures designed to evade traditional detection and takedown efforts. Although UDRP proceedings remain an effective tool in clear cases of bad-faith registration and cybersquatting, rights holders increasingly must pair domain enforcement with coordinated monitoring across e-commerce platforms, social media, and online advertising ecosystems.

Recent disputes also demonstrate how cybersquatters are increasingly targeting AI-related brands and technologies. For example, in Leonardo Interactive Pty Ltd. v. Nilmini Rathnayaka, WIPO Case No. D2025-0324, a panel ordered the transfer of a typo-squatted AI-related domain name after finding that the registrant had engaged in impersonation and bad-faith conduct designed to capitalize on confusion surrounding the complainant’s AI platform. The case reflects the broader trend of bad actors exploiting rapidly growing technology sectors and consumer familiarity with AI services to facilitate deceptive online activity.

Counterfeiting and brand abuse continue to increase across social media and social commerce platforms, particularly where platforms combine content discovery with direct purchasing tools. Facebook, Instagram, TikTok, TikTok Shop, Facebook Marketplace, resale platforms, livestream shopping features, and private messaging channels remain significant enforcement concerns. Social commerce is no longer merely an advertising channel for counterfeiters; in many cases, it forms part of the sales funnel itself, with counterfeit goods discovered through short-form video, livestreams, influencer-style content, and algorithmic recommendations before transactions are completed either through in-app checkout or via off-platform sites. Social media remains a critical tool for bad actors because it allows counterfeiters to build trust quickly, target consumers with precision, and disappear or reappear with minimal friction. Common tactics include the use of “dupe” terminology, misspellings, coded hashtags, altered product images, disappearing stories, livestream flash sales, link-in-bio redirects, and direct-message ordering, as well as the increasing use of AI-generated images, synthetic storefronts, and automated engagement to create the appearance of legitimacy.

A particularly acute and rapidly escalating risk arises from the use of livestream commerce on platforms such as TikTok and Instagram, which has emerged as a primary vehicle for the real-time promotion and sale of counterfeit goods. Unlike static listings or short-form video content, livestreams enable bad actors to market infringing products in dynamic, interactive environments that foster immediacy and consumer trust, often through flash sales, limited-time offers, and direct engagement with viewers. These streams frequently incorporate in-app purchasing tools or seamless redirects to external payment channels, underscoring that platforms are no longer merely passive conduits of advertising but are increasingly embedded in the transactional ecosystem itself. From an enforcement perspective, livestream commerce presents a uniquely difficult challenge: infringing activity is inherently ephemeral, often existing only for the duration of a broadcast, and may be altered or terminated before rights holders can identify and report it. Sellers further evade detection by rotating accounts, using coded language, and shifting transactions to private or encrypted channels, while the scale and velocity of livestream content outpace traditional notice-and-takedown mechanisms, forcing rights holders into a largely reactive posture.

Private and encrypted channels are also becoming more important venues for illicit commerce, as counterfeiters frequently use public-facing social media content to attract consumers before moving transactions into WhatsApp, Telegram, Discord, WeChat, closed Facebook groups, or other private communities. These environments complicate enforcement due to end-to-end encryption, disappearing messages, anonymous accounts, and limited visibility for rights holders or investigators. Although platform enforcement tools have improved in some respects — including brand portals, IP reporting dashboards, seller verification tools, repeat-infringer programs, and proactive detection technologies — these measures remain uneven in practice. Rights holders continue to report delays, inconsistent takedown outcomes, difficulty identifying repeat offenders, and fragmentation of infringing activity across multiple accounts and platforms. At the same time, AI-driven content creation and rapid reposting have further increased the burden on brand protection efforts, highlighting persistent structural gaps in current enforcement frameworks.

Artificial intelligence (AI) has developed at a rapid pace, prompting US legislators, regulators, and courts to grapple with a range of novel legal and policy issues, including whether — and how — to regulate its use. To date, the United States has not enacted comprehensive, centralized legislation governing AI. Instead, the regulatory landscape continues to evolve through a fragmented mix of federal proposals, state-level initiatives, agency enforcement activity, and judicial decisions. Numerous AI-related bills have been introduced in Congress, while states have taken an increasingly active role in regulating algorithmic decision making, consumer protection risks, and automated systems. See Brennan Center for Justice, Artificial Intelligence Legislation Tracker, www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/artificial-intelligence-legislation-tracker; National Conference of State Legislatures, Artificial Intelligence Legislation, www.ncsl.org/technology-and-communication/artificial-intelligence-legislation.

At the same time, federal agencies have begun to assert authority through guidance and enforcement actions, and in the intellectual property context, the US Copyright Office continues to evaluate the implications of generative AI for authorship, ownership, and training data, signaling that further regulatory or legislative intervention is likely. See US Copyright Office, Copyright and Artificial Intelligence, www.copyright.gov/ai.

For legal practitioners, AI presents both significant efficiencies and material risks, particularly where reliance on automated outputs intersects with professional obligations. Courts have made clear that the use of AI does not diminish an attorney’s duty to ensure accuracy and reliability in filings. This principle was underscored in Mata v. Avianca, Inc., 2023 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 108263 (S.D.N.Y. June 22, 2023), where attorneys were sanctioned for submitting filings containing fabricated case citations generated through an AI tool. Since Mata, courts have increasingly issued standing orders, guidance, or certification requirements addressing the use of AI in litigation, reflecting a broader concern that AI-generated content may introduce systemic risks if not properly supervised. These developments reinforce that AI must be treated as an assistive tool subject to rigorous human oversight, rather than a substitute for professional judgment.

The use of AI also implicates core ethical obligations governing attorney conduct in the United States, which remain primarily regulated at the state level. Although there is no singular governing body, the American Bar Association’s Model Rules of Professional Conduct (the “Model Rules”) continue to serve as the foundational framework and have been adopted, in whole or in part, by most jurisdictions. While the Model Rules do not specifically address AI, existing provisions — particularly those relating to competence, diligence, confidentiality, supervision, and candor to the tribunal — are directly implicated by its use. Bar associations and regulatory bodies have increasingly emphasized that attorneys must understand the capabilities and limitations of AI tools, safeguard client information when using such technologies, and independently verify AI-assisted work product. As with social commerce platforms, the rapid integration of AI into core functions of legal practice is outpacing the development of formal regulatory frameworks, creating heightened risk exposure and placing greater emphasis on proactive compliance and professional responsibility.

Deepfake technology adds a layer of “faux” credibility to counterfeit products by creating video replications of an individual’s image and likeness, which can be manipulated by the creator to act, speak and appear as they wish. Counterfeiters can now utilize the technology to advertise their products via videos of popular public figures expressing their endorsement of the goods. Deepfake technology — aided by the AI revolution — has become increasingly sophisticated, making deepfakes nearly undetectable to consumers. In January 2024, popular singer/songwriter Taylor Swift fell victim to a deepfake scam. A counterfeit seller of Le Creuset kitchenware developed a deepfake video of the singer endorsing a giveaway. The brand was forced to reckon with angry consumers, who were duped by the video, thereby causing the brand to issue a public apology.

Deepfake technology poses a significant threat to brands utilizing influencer marketing techniques. Where the image and likeness of the brands’ key figures are readily available online, counterfeiters have all the tools to formulate faux videos in connection with their fraudulent activities. Although our clients have yet to be affected by deepfake technology, the firm is highly aware of the dangers it poses and has implemented steps to root out such scams. Specifically, we regularly monitor online platforms, submit takedown requests, send cease and desist letters, and keep in constant communication with clients about what advertising and marketing efforts they authorize. Like any other counterfeiting technique, constant vigilance is key.

There have been significant efforts at both the state federal level to pass laws and regulations touching upon crypto technology and digital assets, and particularly, cryptocurrency. See, for example, National Conference of State Legislatures, Cryptocurrency, Digital or Virtual Currency and Digital Assets 2024 Legislation, www.ncsl.org/financial-services/cryptocurrency-digital-or-virtual-currency-and-digital-assets-2024-legislation (last updated February 21, 2024) (tracking state legislation relating to cryptocurrency and digital assets). As with AI, there is no singular broad-sweeping centralized legislation addressing crypto technology, but instead, a plethora of laws and regulations have been proposed that touch upon crypto technology, some of which have passed.

As with AI and crypto technology, there is no singular governing body responsible for all regulation of piracy via content streaming in the United States, and there are a number of laws and regulations that touch upon the topic, either directly or indirectly. One notable more recent federal law that was passed is the Protecting Lawful Streaming Act of 2020, part of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No: 116-260) (PLSA), which was signed into law on December 27, 2020, and aimed at remedying a loophole in the penalties available for the illegal streaming of copyrighted works. The PLSA made illegal streaming a felony when done “willfully” and “for purposes of commercial advantage or private financial gain”, but only when offering or providing to the public a “digital transmission service” that meets one or more qualifications. (18 U.S.C. § 2319C(b).) In other words, the PLSA only applies to the most severe offenders: those operating commercial streaming services intended for illegal streaming. Prior to the passage of the PLSA, such an offense was only a misdemeanor. The heightened penalties provided by the PLSA are intended to act as a deterrent to curb such illegal conduct.

Despite lobbying efforts by the Motion Picture Association of America, among other industry groups, to date, the United States has refrained from joining other jurisdictions and has not passed any federal site blocking legislation. That being said, under the Copyright Act, a rights holder is able to seek a temporary, preliminary, or permanent injunction on “such terms as it may deem reasonable to prevent or restrain infringement of a copyright”, among other remedies, including damages and attorneys’ fees, against a copyright infringer (or anyone acting in concert or participation with such an infringer), including those engaged in the streaming of pirated content online. (17 U.S. Code § 502; 17 U.S. Code § 504.) The Digital Millennium Act, in addition to establishing a notice and takedown system, also provides US courts with the authority to issue injunctions against service providers, such as those that provide streaming services. (17 U.S. Code § 512(j)(1).)

QR codes have become a daily feature of our lives — from QR-coded menus at restaurants to methods of payment, their efficacy is undeniable. However, the risks associated with QR codes have exponentially increased in direct proportion to their popularity. Scammers can now utilize QR codes to employ phishing scams, redirecting consumers to malicious websites or counterfeit product listings. Recently, our clients have seen an increase in all-out counterfeit websites. Although QR codes have not yet been employed, they could play a part in the promotion and trafficking of these fake websites in the future.

US Customs and Border Protection (CBP) remains the primary agency responsible for interdicting counterfeit goods at US borders. CBP has broad authority to search, detain, seize, and destroy goods bearing infringing trademarks that are registered with the USPTO and recorded through CBP’s e-Recordation system. Recordation remains a key and cost-effective tool for rights holders, enabling CBP to identify suspect shipments and coordinate with brands during the detention process. Seizure information, including importer and manufacturer details, also provides valuable intelligence for follow-on enforcement.

Despite these tools, enforcement challenges persist, particularly due to the growth of e-commerce and the corresponding increase in small parcel shipments, which are more difficult to inspect and are frequently used by counterfeiters to evade detection. CBP has responded by adopting more risk-based targeting and expanding information-sharing partnerships with rights holders and industry groups, but the volume and fragmentation of shipments continue to limit full interdiction.

CBP’s enforcement role is reinforced through coordination with agencies such as Homeland Security Investigations (HSI), as well as its authority to impose civil fines and refer matters for further investigation. Ongoing collaboration with rights holders — including training and product identification support — remains critical, although increasingly sophisticated counterfeiting operations continue to test the effectiveness of border enforcement measures.

Recent global and regional disruptions — including supply chain instability, inflationary pressures, and broader geopolitical tensions — have had a measurable impact on both enforcement priorities and counterfeiting activity in the United States. While pandemic-era disruptions initially strained enforcement resources and shifted attention toward health and safety concerns, many of the resulting changes appear to be lasting, particularly the increased reliance on e-commerce and decentralized distribution channels. These conditions have enabled counterfeiters to adapt quickly, leveraging fragmented supply chains and direct-to-consumer models that complicate traditional enforcement efforts. In terms of product trends, enforcement authorities have reported continued growth in the seizure of consumer goods tied to high-demand, high-margin categories, including apparel, footwear, luxury goods, electronics, and automotive parts, as well as a sustained presence of health-related products and personal care items. More recently, there has also been an uptick in counterfeit goods linked to emerging consumer trends, including digital accessories, branded lifestyle products, and goods promoted through social media and influencer channels. These shifts reflect both changing consumer behavior and the ability of bad actors to rapidly align their offerings with market demand, underscoring the need for adaptable and technology-driven enforcement strategies.