U.S. Chamber Comment: 2026 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy

Note: footnotes are provided in the document attached to this page

October 5, 2026

Mr. Daniel Lee
Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for Innovation and Intellectual Property
Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
600 17th Street, NW
Washington, DC 20508

Re: 2026 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy [Docket Number USTR-2026-0529]

Dear Mr. Lee:

The U.S. Chamber of Commerce (“the Chamber”) appreciates the opportunity to submit comments to the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (“USTR”) regarding the 2026 Review of Notorious Markets for Counterfeiting and Piracy.

Strong, predictable, and enforceable intellectual property (“IP”) rights are essential to protecting Americans’ inventions, creations, and products. IP rights serve as a foundation for American competitiveness, strengthen consumer trust, and uphold the rule of law. Trademarks and brands are a critical part of that framework. 

Intellectual property is an essential piece of every U.S. industry. The U.S. Department of State reports that, as of 2019, U.S. IP-intensive industries accounted for $7.8 trillion in Gross Domestic Product (GDP), thirty-three percent (33%) of all U.S. employment, seventy-nine percent (79%) of all U.S. exports, and supported forty-seven (47.2) million jobs. Theft of intellectual property is incredibly harmful. The Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) estimates that counterfeit and pirated goods represented as much as USD 467 billion, or 2.3% of global trade, in 2021. The Chamber welcomes USTR’s focus on high-quality counterfeit trademark goods, often referred to as “superfakes” or “superclones.” Superfakes and superclones represent a dangerous evolution in counterfeiting of these markers of authenticity, quality, and trust. Counterfeiters design superfakes and superclones to be difficult for consumers, marketplaces, customs officials, and even experienced reviewers to distinguish from genuine goods. They often replicate not only trademarks and brands, but also packaging, labels, serial markers, authentication materials, and other indications of legitimacy. Superfakes and superclones span all industries, from luxury goods to automotive components, to video game plug-and-play consoles and handheld devices.

The Chamber encourages USTR to treat superfakes and superclones as an urgent trademark enforcement challenge in the 2026 Notorious Markets review. However, effective enforcement must go beyond the counterfeiting of individual commodity types or tactics. The review should address the actors that provide the opportunities and access points for counterfeit goods to be manufactured, promoted, shipped, paid for, and sold at scale. This includes illicit online marketplaces, social media platforms, resale channels, payment networks, logistics providers, and physical markets that facilitate production, distribution, or transshipment. 

First, the Chamber encourages USTR to recognize platforms that demonstrate meaningful engagement, strong and sufficiently resourced compliance systems, and constructive cooperation with rightsholders and enforcement authorities. Highlighting good practices can help raise standards across digital marketplaces, provides best practice examples for others to emulate, and reinforces the value of public-private collaboration. These good actors include businesses, digital marketplaces, and other supply chain participants that work to identify and block bad actors seeking to misuse their systems. Best practices combine seller verification, human and AI-driven detection, and collaboration with brands, retailers, shippers, buyers, customs officials, and law enforcement to disrupt criminal networks at their sources. Public-private collaboration, in particular, should be recognized; these engagements and partnerships require significant time and energy to develop and maintain. Such investments are essential because rightsholders have product expertise and supply chain knowledge that can help enforcement officials identify counterfeit networks more effectively.

Both physical and online marketplaces, particularly resale channels, have a responsibility to prevent counterfeiters. Platforms should maintain meaningful seller vetting, respond promptly to credible rightsholder complaints, preserve evidence, prevent repeat infringers from returning under new identities, and cooperate with law enforcement. Resale platforms that hold themselves out as trusted intermediaries should maintain rigorous authentication procedures and work constructively with brands when counterfeit goods are identified. 

In addition, USTR should not disregard the important role physical markets continue to play as nodes for the movement of counterfeit and illicit trade networks. These locations serve as wholesale hubs, distribution points, storage centers, and transshipment channels for counterfeit, diverted, unregulated, or otherwise illicit products. The Chamber encourages USTR to consider the following markets and locations for closer examination.

The Chamber also seeks to highlight the growing threat from non-counterfeit illicit products (“NCIPs”). Increasingly, superfakes and superclones are of a quality that can defeat the ability of consumers, platforms, regulators, and enforcement officials to distinguish illicit goods from legitimate products. The Chamber urges USTR to recognize a parallel evolution on the regulatory side of illicit trade: the growth of non-counterfeit illicit products (“NCIPs”).

I. Positive Practices and Constructive Engagement
A. Amazon. Amazon has invested significant resources into their supply chain security protections. Amazon’s April 2026 “Trustworthy Shopping Experience Report" describes their multilayered approach to protecting customers, brands, sellers, and the wider retail supply chain from fraud and counterfeiters. The approach combines seller verification, AI-driven detection, product authentication, investigations, and enforcement, while collaborating with brands, retailers, shippers, buyers, customs officials, and law enforcement to disrupt criminal networks at their source.

B. eBay. eBay has demonstrated a strong commitment to brand protection. Counterfeit products are not regularly found on the platform. When a listing requires submission for review, eBay is highly compliant and responsive, typically taking action within 24 to 48 hours. eBay operates a verified top-seller program, maintains a repeat-infringer policy, and provides rightsholders with the Verified Rights Owner (“VeRO”) tool to report intellectual property infringements directly through the platform. A dedicated point of contact is also available to assist rightsholders when issues arise.

C. Mercado Libre. Mercado Libre has been active in preventing illicit trade in health products on its platform. It maintains a specific policy prohibiting advertisements and sales of health products that are subject to medical prescription or use by health professionals. Mercado Libre also operates a Brand Protection Program through which brand owners can request enforcement. In addition, Mercado Libre has signed a Memorandum of Understanding with health authorities from several countries in Latin America to support more effective collaboration in preventing illicit trade.

II. Online Marketplaces and Platforms of Concern
The Chamber encourages USTR to examine online marketplaces, social media platforms, messaging services, and digital intermediaries that may facilitate the promotion, sale, or distribution of counterfeit, diverted, unregulated, or otherwise illicit goods. Several platforms warrant particular attention based on rightsholder concerns.

A. DHGate. Industry stakeholders have expressed persistent concerns regarding the ineffectiveness of Chinese online wholesaler DHGate’s anti-counterfeiting enforcement. Rights holders have reported substantial counterfeit availability, cumbersome complaint procedures, inadequate seller vetting, and recurring infringement despite takedown efforts. Industry stakeholders have also expressed frustration that repeat offenders can evade detection on this platform through altered branding, code words, and other methods, undermining confidence in the platform’s enforcement framework.

B. IndiaMART. IndiaMART is India’s largest online business-to-business marketplace, connecting buyers and suppliers across a wide array of product categories. Significant volumes of pharmaceutical and medical device products were detected on the platform, including products listed at prices below market value. Product listings often use images commonly seen in other listings, which can create risks of fraudulent or misleading offers where sellers are not required to use original images that accurately reflect the products offered for sale. Compliance on the platform appears inconsistent and is reportedly stronger for pharmaceutical products than for medical devices. IndiaMART states that it conducts seller verification and offers TrustSEAL, a paid verification and certification service for sellers. Brands can report concerns through a counterfeit reporting form recommended by the platform. However, enforcement may take approximately 72 hours to one week. It is unclear whether the platform maintains an effective repeat-infringer policy. In addition, the platform does not appear to employ automatic filtering or proactive enforcement tools. IndiaMART has engaged with brands through industry associations for targeted enforcement, but those efforts have not produced broader, sustained improvements. Although the platform provides a dedicated point of contact, a key challenge is that IndiaMART claims to act only as an intermediary between buyers and sellers and disclaims liability for seller conduct.

C. Lazada. Lazada has established a regional brand protection program, including a notice-and-takedown portal, proactive monitoring, and online-to-offline enforcement tools. Implementation and effectiveness, however, vary across Southeast Asian markets. Rightsholders have reported inconsistencies in responses to takedown requests and, in some cases, limited communication regarding why certain listings were not removed. Lazada Malaysia continues to allow the sale of regulated medical devices, such as contact lenses, on its platform. Attempts to engage Lazada Malaysia to address this issue have been unproductive. Lazada uses a point-based repeat infringer system and states that it verifies sellers. The platform also offers verified seller and flagship store programs for official brand storefronts. Although Lazada provides a dedicated point of contact for brand protection issues, rightsholders continue to report challenges with communication and compliance. 

D. Shein. Many stakeholders have raised concerns about counterfeit merchandise allegedly offered through Shein’s e-commerce marketplace. Reported examples include listings resembling protected logos, character merchandise, luxury brand designs, and other branded goods. Rights holders and industry groups have also cited repeat listings, seller reappearances, and difficulties obtaining effective remedies. U.S. lawmakers, trade associations, and brand-protection organizations have urged closer scrutiny and question whether Shein’s marketplace controls, seller verification, notice-and-takedown procedures, and repeat-infringer policies sufficiently deter abuse.

E. Telegram. Telegram is an online messaging platform that allows users to share encrypted messages and engage through other forms of difficult-to-trace communication. While the platform is generally compliant with takedown requests and customer complaints, the sheer volume of users, ease of registration, and high level of anonymity make it a popular channel for trade in counterfeit and illegal products, including electronics, medicines, and online services.

F. TikTok. TikTok could be considered for inclusion because its social-commerce platform facilitates and even encourages the promotion and sale of sophisticated counterfeit goods, including “superfakes” and “superclones.” TikTok Shop’s own 2026 policies specifically prohibit counterfeits, replicas, “1:1 mirror copies,” “AAA replicas,” and “mirror quality” products, indicating the company’s acknowledgement that these practices are demonstrably enforcement risks.Despite this, TikTok is well known to continue to host and have high visibility on numerous content creators who promote counterfeit goods sales and use.

G. Tokopedia. Tokopedia remains one of Indonesia’s largest e-commerce platforms, but compliance with takedown requests appears inconsistent. The platform has a verified pharmaceutical seller program and states that it maintains a repeatinfringer policy, though implementation does not appear fully consistent based on rightsholder experience. Tokopedia uses automatic filtering and proactive enforcement, and outcomes from such enforcement can be shared with brand owners upon request. The platform also provides a dedicated point of contact for brand holders.  Tokopedia has launched an e-Pharmacy feature, but there is limited visibility into buyer verification procedures, particularly regarding prescription validation. Stringent verification processes are critical to safety and compliance in this sensitive category.

III. Physical Marketplaces of Concern
A. India — Bhagirath Palace in Delhi. Bhagirath Palace is primarily known for its extensive trade in electrical and electronic goods, but it also has a substantial pharmaceutical market. Numerous pharmacies operate in the area and trade a wide range of pharmaceutical products, including prescription medicines and medical devices. These outlets are known to sell counterfeit and unlicensed products, often without requiring prescriptions for controlled pharmaceutical items.

B. Indonesia — Pramuka Market in Jakarta. Pramuka Market has long been recognized as a hotspot for the open sale of illegal pharmaceutical products. Prescription medicines and medical devices are widely available without proper authorization or regulatory oversight. This undermines legitimate supply chains and creates serious public health risks, as consumers may be exposed to counterfeit, substandard, or unregistered medicines. Given its scale and visibility, Pramuka Market warrants closer monitoring and stronger enforcement action to curb the proliferation of illicit pharmaceuticals and protect public safety. 

We note that Indonesia and Malaysia both have signed Agreements on Reciprocal Trade with the United States. These include commitments to strengthen civil and criminal penalties for IP infringement, enhance border enforcement for IP protection, and prioritize enforcement against copyright and trademark infringement. Ratification of the agreements by their respective legislatures remains uncertain.

C. Pakistan. Several physical marketplaces in Pakistan are considered high-risk areas for the wholesale and retail distribution of pharmaceutical and medical products, with known concerns related to counterfeit, diverted, or unregulated goods. These include:

1. Multan — Nishtar Hospital vicinity;
2. Faisalabad — Chiniot Bazar Medicine Market;
3. Karachi — Kachi Gali
4. Lahore — areas adjacent to Meo Hospital and General Hospital; and
5. Swat — areas near Swat Medical Complex, Faizabad Road, and Saidu Teaching Hospital

These locations serve as major hubs for pharmaceutical trade and are often associated with limited regulatory oversight, making them important points for monitoring in the context of illicit medical product distribution. 

D. Russia — TYaK “Moskva” Trade Fair Complex. TYaK “Moskva,” also known as the “Moskva” trade fair complex, is a market complex similar to Sadovod (Russia's largest wholesale and retail trading complex). Moskva is located in the southeastern part of Moscow. It is a prominent location for the trade in counterfeit car parts and various consumer goods. The market is adjacent to an inter-city bus station and has its own dedicated cargo area. Both areas are reportedly used as transit points for counterfeit and illegal goods, including goods that are not sold directly in the market, such as medical devices. Law enforcement and customs authorities face significant challenges conducting enforcement actions throughout the market because ownership employs a private security force and allegedly maintains close ties with the government.

E. Türkiye — Grand Bazaar, Aksaray, Fatih District, and Umraniye Districts. Istanbul remains a hotspot for illicit trade, with the Grand Bazaar, Aksaray, the broader Fatih district, and Umraniye playing key roles. These markets have long been known for counterfeit textiles, clothing, and bags, and the same actors are increasingly reported to be trafficking counterfeit pharmaceutical products. Traders experienced in counterfeit textiles and electronics are shifting into pharmaceuticals by leveraging existing networks and distribution channels. This overlap between counterfeit consumer goods and counterfeit medicines amplifies the risk, allowing established counterfeit networks to expand into products that directly endanger public health.

IV. Additional Market Observations
A. Pakistan. In Pakistan, online selling is primarily conducted through platforms such as Daraz.pk. These platforms have seen significant growth and are widely used for the sale of consumer goods and health-related products by third-party vendors. Regulatory oversight and enforcement vary, particularly on social media platforms where informal selling is common. While major e-commerce platforms have established seller policies and category restrictions, monitoring and compliance remain persistent challenges, especially in high-risk or regulated product categories.

Taken together, offline and online markets in Pakistan present significant challenges for the regulation of pharmaceutical and medical product distribution. The high-risk offline locations identified above are known hubs for unregulated trade and often operate with limited oversight. At the same time, the rapid growth of online selling, particularly on social media platforms and e-commerce sites, has introduced new complexities for monitoring and enforcement. Addressing the risks associated with counterfeit, diverted, and unregulated products will require stronger regulatory enforcement, greater platform accountability, and closer collaboration between public and private stakeholders.

B. Türkiye. In Türkiye, the trade in counterfeit pharmaceuticals is an increasing concern across both online and offline channels. The sale of pharmaceuticals online is legally prohibited, which should enable rightsholders and authorities to demand swift takedowns and platform compliance. In practice, however, counterfeiters exploit social media and messaging applications — particularly Telegram — where they open multiple accounts and continue trading illicit products in closed or semi-closed groups, making enforcement more complex.

Türkiye illustrates how entrenched counterfeit ecosystems adapt quickly by shifting between online platforms, social media networks, messaging services, and traditional physical markets. The convergence of counterfeit textiles, electronics, and pharmaceuticals, combined with the misuse of digital platforms despite a clear legal prohibition, underscores the need for stronger enforcement and closer cooperation with rightsholders.

V. Non-Counterfeit Illicit Products: An Emerging Threat

NCIPs are goods that are manufactured, imported, or sold in violation of the laws and regulations that govern them. These may include products that bypass required regulatory approvals, evade product safety or labeling standards, avoid excise and customs obligations, or exploit gaps between regulatory systems. NCIPs are especially concerning when products are administered to, applied to, or otherwise used in or on the human body. In those cases, the products may pose direct health and safety risks because they can bypass safety evaluations, quality controls, and manufacturing, storage, and shipping standards. They may contain undeclared, banned, or toxic ingredients, and their active ingredients may be absent, diluted, contaminated, or excessively concentrated.

While superfakes and superclones defeat detection by imitating a brand, NCIPs can defeat detection in a different way. The product may appear facially legitimate. The mark may be owned by the producer. The packaging may not immediately reveal the violation. In practical terms, the product can operate under a legal mask while evading the regulatory requirements that lawful businesses follow and upon which consumers rely.

IP infringers and NCIP violators often use similar commercial models. They move through the same e-commerce platforms, express carriers, payment channels, and transnational smuggling networks. They take market share from legitimate U.S. firms that bear the full cost of compliance while unlawful competitors avoid those obligations. They misuse the U.S. trade system through misdeclarations, undervaluations, and transshipments. But NCIPs present an additional and important concern: because these products often bypass regulatory review, they can put American consumers at significant risk.

Enforcement agencies increasingly treat these categories as connected parts of the same illicit trade challenge. The National Intellectual Property Rights Coordination Center (“IPRC”), whose primary focus is IP theft, reported in June 2026 that such items are a priority for the IPRC. The OECD has likewise opened a dedicated NCIP workstream, convening dialogues in Tokyo, Washington, DC, and Europe, while businesses across a range of sectors have urged the OECD to define the category and coordinate an enforcement response.

The sectors most exposed to NCIPs are those where regulatory approvals, safety standards, or excise taxes stand between the producer and the consumer. These include pharmaceuticals and medical devices, nutritional supplements and nutraceuticals, pesticides and agrochemicals, automotive and electrical components, alcoholic products, and tobacco, e-cigarettes and other nicotine products.

The Chamber recommends that USTR use the 2026 review process to define NCIPs as a distinct category of illicit trade and report on the markets, platforms, and supply chains in which they concentrate, so that the category can be measured and tracked. USTR should also pursue remedies through bilateral and multilateral trade negotiations, including commitments that exporting governments enforce their own export rules and that customs administrations exchange export declaration data before cargo is loaded at ports of origin.

USTR should also encourage the enforcement infrastructure that already exists domestically — including the IPRC, CBP’s advance-targeting systems, and Homeland Security Investigations’ investigative resources — to address NCIP violations with the seriousness and rigor that the government brings to IP violations. The asymmetry is notable. In FY2025, CBP made 25,079 IP seizures valued at $7.35 billion, compared with 9,116 import safety seizures valued at $137.4 million. On the criminal side, HSI arrested 542 individuals, obtained 435 indictments, and pursued 160 convictions for IP crimes in FY2024 alone. Comparable statistics for NCIP crimes are not published in the same way. That gap is part of the challenge. Trade fraud involving NCIPs may involve criminal violations, and those violations should be investigated, charged, penalized, and tracked as a distinct category. Doing so would help USTR work more effectively with foreign government authorities and pursue appropriate enforcement actions.

VI. Recommendations
The Chamber recommends that USTR use the 2026 review to:

A. Recognize good actors and effective compliance models. USTR should highlight platforms and supply chain participants that demonstrate strong seller vetting, responsive enforcement, proactive monitoring, effective repeat infringer policies, and meaningful collaboration with rightsholders and law enforcement.

B. Focus on systemic enforcement failures. The review should call attention to weak seller verification, ineffective takedown systems, repeat infringement, misuse of intermediary status, and business models that allow counterfeiters and illicit traders to evade accountability.

C. Encourage transparency and data sharing. Marketplaces and intermediaries should maintain accurate seller information, verify high-risk sellers, preserve evidence, and share appropriate information with enforcement authorities consistent with applicable law.

D. Strengthen customs cooperation. Trading partners should ensure customs officials have the authority, data, and resources needed to stop suspected counterfeit and illicit goods quickly, coordinate with affected rightsholders, and exchange export declaration data before cargo is loaded at ports of origin.

E. Support stronger enforcement of export rules. USTR should encourage exporting governments to enforce their own laws against manufacturers, exporters, freight forwarders, and intermediaries that facilitate the shipment of counterfeit or illicit products into the United States.

F. Promote public-private partnerships. Governments, brands, marketplaces, logistics providers, payment networks, and other stakeholders should be incentivized to work together to disrupt counterfeit and illicit trade networks. The Chamber’s memorandum of understanding with U.S. Customs and Border Protection serves as an example of the impactful and mutually beneficial work that can come from such arrangements.

G. Define and track NCIPs as a distinct illicit trade category. USTR should recognize NCIPs as an emerging enforcement challenge and report on the markets, platforms, supply chains, and trade routes in which they concentrate. 

The Chamber appreciates USTR’s continued leadership in identifying markets that facilitate counterfeiting and piracy. The Chamber stands ready to work with USTR, other Federal agencies, trading partners, and the business community to strengthen trademark enforcement, address emerging illicit trade risks, and protect consumers. It is vital to ensure that America remains the best place in the world to invent, create, design, problem-solve, and to bring the fruits of these efforts to market.

Sincerely,

Brad Watts
Senior Vice President
Global Innovation Policy Center
U.S. Chamber of Commerce

About the author

Brad Watts

Brad Watts is the Senior Vice President at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce's Global Innovation Policy Center (GIPC). He works with U.S. Chamber members to foster a political, legal, and economic environment where innovators and creators can invest in the next big thing for the benefit of Americans and the world.

Read more